A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punchline is really happening. It should not be happening. Under Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004), dismissal of this action is required for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law – at least not in the Ninth Circuit.
OK so it’s PETA doing the pushing. Nuts on first glance but I wonder if this is a precursor step to getting animal “ownership” rights enshrined in whatever way possible to be able to set precedent for going after Big Pharma/Genomics for trying to patent/register ownership of DNA sequences etc? Or maybe it’s just nuts. The law really is a complex, uh, beast sometimes.
What am I looking at?
I’m not sure exactly, but:
A motion to dismiss in a legal fight over a photo taken by a money. It’s an interesting corner case of IP law.
OK so it’s PETA doing the pushing. Nuts on first glance but I wonder if this is a precursor step to getting animal “ownership” rights enshrined in whatever way possible to be able to set precedent for going after Big Pharma/Genomics for trying to patent/register ownership of DNA sequences etc? Or maybe it’s just nuts. The law really is a complex, uh, beast sometimes.
Here you have a lawyer talk about some of the nuances.
Really interesting. Thanks.