The nature photographer who owned the camera wanted copyright on the photo.
But PETA actually went to court and won the case for the Monkey. In the end, this basically means everyone can reuse the photo as the monkey wouldn't complain. Way to go PETA.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/560197dbe4b08820d91a5cbb?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000025
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1c/94/22/1c9422d6aecf9ec84d0d2e7dae771a3f.jpg)
^^Lol!
@Jomni
I am surprised that the case occurred at all given that the complainant - a monkey - is neither a living human being, nor an incorporated body, therefore being incapable of having a legal personality. Failing to have a legal personality, in simple terms, means you can have no right to legal redress. Why on earth was a Federal court entertaining such a frivolous suit?
I think LB's hoot sums it up very nicely! :2funny:
I really really dislike PETA. They are one of the truly annoying activist groups.
Sorry misread the article. I think nobody has won anything yet. PETA just came out to sue
No irony here...
QuoteCrested black macaques are mainly frugivorous, spending 70% of their time feeding on fruits, but they consume a huge variety of foods including seeds, leaves, flowers, pith, herbs, grass seeds, fungus, bird eggs, birds, and small vertebrates such as lizards and frogs (O'Brien & Kinnaird 1997).
source: http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/crested_black_macaque
Quote from: LongBlade on September 25, 2015, 06:02:44 AM
No irony here...
QuoteCrested black macaques are mainly frugivorous, spending 70% of their time feeding on fruits, but they consume a huge variety of foods including seeds, leaves, flowers, pith, herbs, grass seeds, fungus, bird eggs, birds, and small vertebrates such as lizards and frogs (O'Brien & Kinnaird 1997).
source: http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/crested_black_macaque
;D