LA Times - Monkey can't sue for copyright infringement

[redfan]

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...&ICID=ref_fark

We must determine whether a monkey may sue humans, corporations, and companies for damages and injunctive relief arising from claims of copyright infringement," Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal appeals court decided unanimously Monday that animals may not sue for copyright protection.

Take that, PETA!!

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Holladay

Surely this is an Onion piece?

How the heck did it make it that far. One step away from the SCOTUS!

PETA filed suit on behalf of the monkey. They did so using what is known as 'next friend' doctrine. The 'next friend' doctrine allows someone to file a suit on behalf of another when the person who would file the suit is unable to do so and there is a close personal relationship between the person actually filing the suit and the would-be plaintiff. So if my wife were injured in a car accident to the point she could not speak or communicate, I could sue on her behalf as next friend.

The case was filed in federal court because it deal with copyright. Under our Constitution, Congress makes laws regarding copyright and trademark so a State court cannot hear the case.

There are several matters a court must address before a case can proceed. There needs to be an actual 'case or controversy', that is, there must actually be a disagreement between two parties that can bring a suit. Congress could pass a law tomorrow that is blatantly unconstitutional (prohibiting criticizing Congress, for example) and the Supreme Court could not do anything about it until someone actually filed a suit to declare the law unconstitutional (and then only if the case made its way through the various levels of courts).

If there is a case and controversy, the parties before the court must have standing, that is, they must be the ones that are actually injured. This is where the 'next friend' doctrine comes in. PETA argued on behalf of the monkey, claiming next friend status.

The defendants (those being sued) filed a motion with the court to dismiss, arguing that the monkey could not be a party because they monkey did not have standing, nor was PETA a next friend. The District Court agreed that the monkey did not have standing. So PETA appealed.

Every party has a right to appeal a decision. Federal appeals go to different 'Circuits'. There are 11 Circuits plus the DC Circuit, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the Military Court of Appeals. The Circuits are generally arranged by geography, although the Federal Circuit and Military Court are based on subject matter. So when the District Court ruled against PETA, PETA had the right to appeal.

And the Ninth Circuit is not technically one step before the Supreme Court. Circuits handle tens of thousands of cases each year because everyone has the right to appeal a decision. Circuits handle cases with panels of 3 judges, although Circuits usually have more than 3 judges. The 9th Circuit, for example, has about 30 judges. If a Circuit rules against you, you can ask the Supreme Court to take the case. This is called a petition for certiorari, generally shortened to 'cert petition'. The Supreme Court does not have to take the case and indeed, they take less than 1% of cert petitions.

In the alternative, you can ask that the whole Circuit hears a case. This is known as an 'en banc' panel. In every Circuit but the 9th, it means that all of the Circuit Judges hear the case. In the 9th, en banc panels consist of a majority of the sitting Circuit judges (I think 17 or 19 but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'd have to review it and this answer is taking way too long anyway.) An en banc decision is 1 step away from the Supreme Court. Also, Circuits have complete discretion about whether to take an en banc decision. I doubt they will do so in this case because of the copyright issue but they may for another reason I will discuss below and even then the likelihood is low.

The issue on appeal was standing because that was all that was addressed in the trial court. The defendants essentially said, "Hey, whatever they want, they are not the ones to get it so this case should be thrown out." For this reason, the Circuit Court will act as if everything alleged in the complaint is true and then decide whether there is standing or not. There are different kinds of standing based upon the rights asserted. Here, PETA argued that the monkey had standing under copyright statutes. The panel first started by noting that PETA did not qualify as a 'next friend' because they did not prove that there was any special relationship between PETA and this particular monkey.

The panel then focused on copyright standing because of a previous 9th Circuit case that granted constitutional standing to animals. The 9th Circuit previously issued a decision allowing a suit to proceed involving cetaceans and granted cetaceans (whales and dolphins) constitutional standing to challenge shipping noise. Because of that, the panel did not address the monkey's Article III (constitutional) standing but focused on the copyright standing. This part of the panel thought the cetacean standing was not a good idea and they 9th should overrule that.

One judge wrote and said that the whole thing should have been thrown out and the decision granting cetaceans standing was incorrect. He urged that decision be over-ruled and he would find that the monkey did not have constitutional standing as well.

PETA lost and was even ordered to pay the winners' attorney fees but it now has a choice. PETA could ask for an en banc decision (see above). PETA might be stupid enough to do this. If they do ask for an en banc decision, the winners here could urge the court to overturn the cetacean decision. So PETA would be smart to not ask for en banc.

Some judges might have supported the cetacean decision because they wanted to protect the whales. Now, though, they can see what a Pandora's box has been opened and they could vote to overturn the cetacean decision because it protected the whales but its continued existence will lead to frivolous cases like this. That could be grounds for some judges to agree to take this en banc. It is about the only reason I could see why some judges would take this en banc.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by redhed

Just another attempt by PETA to assign personhood to animals.

Does that mean they are ok with people having sex with their pets or stray animals they hook up with for a one nighter?

[displacedinMN]

Frozen-rep for the explanation.

But that is the very reason why people hate lawyers. Many fight with BS until they get their way. Hopefully, other judges see this as BS and frivolous and PETA is forced to drop it.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by displacedinMN

Frozen-rep for the explanation.

But that is the very reason why people hate lawyers. Many fight with BS until they get their way. Hopefully, other judges see this as BS and frivolous and PETA is forced to drop it.

They don't 'argue BS until they get their way.' They advocate their client's position before an authoritative body.

It's can be messy, empassioned and time-consuming, but it's still the best way to peaceably settle differences in a free and open society.

[Valiant]

Just wait til computers keep going and we get closer to ai. They will own most copyrights.

Mr. Ai7463, did you take this photo with your night vision cam of Taylor swift running naked in your owners backyard?
Ai:Beep, whistle.
Verdict granted, robot owns copyrights to the photo.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

They don't 'argue BS until they get their way.' They advocate their client's position before an authoritative body.

It's can be messy, empassioned and time-consuming, but it's still the best way to peaceably settle differences in a free and open society.

I thought the best way was to throw a year-long tantrum and scream at the sky.

[RippedmyFlesh]

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

I thought the best way was to throw a year-long tantrum and scream at the sky.

Depends if you allow cathersis to substitute for satisfaction.

[Baby Lee]

Monkey Selfie - the Motion Picture

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e-nast-1109061

[Rasputin]

If we can't sue monkeys for flinging poo at the zoo then they shouldn't have a right to sue.


If we flung poo on a monkey at a zoo I'm pretty sure you would get in a lot of trouble.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Monkey Selfie - the Motion Picture

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e-nast-1109061

This could be interesting. Link says Conde Nast has done 40 films since 2011.

[Lzen]

Oh, man. That headline made me think that the Korn guitarist was suing.