Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2018/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]wikipedia also played a big part in this dispute, also and they were not on ?our? side <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html> Ric Carter www.CartersXRd.net http://www.facebook.com/ric.carter The only razor I use is Occam?s. > On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:14 AM, Peter Klein via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> > wrote: > > No, a primate can't own a copyright to a selfie it took with a > photographer's camera. > <http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/384531-federal-appeals-court-upholds-ruling-that-animals-cannot-sue-under> > > People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued the photographer > on behalf of the button-pressing macaque. The case dragged on for seven > years and pretty much bankrupted the photographer. Thankfully, the 9th > District Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled that > PETA should pay the photographer's attorney's fees. So after seven years > of legal hell, he may be at least back where he started financially. > > The legal decision runs 41 pages(!) No, I didn't read the whole thing, I > just text-searched it to see if the photographer won his legal expenses. > None of the media reports I read said anything about legal fees, and that > can be just as important as winning one's case. > > Now let's just hope PETA doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court. > > --Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information