Monkey's Lawyers Urge Court Against Snap Judgment

, The Recorder

   | 5 Comments

Seeking to defeat a motion to dismiss, Irell team in "monkey selfie" case focuses on claim that animals can't be granted copyrights.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Dissenting Opinion

    To address ND and Colin‘s points, a corporation cannot "sign" a retainer by itself, it needs a "human" lawyer or director to sign on its behalf. it is also not true that only "human persons" can be granted copyrights - no such requirement exists in the Copyright Act. If there were such a requirement, then there are many corporations all over the world that have vast copyright holdings in their portfolios that would suddenly find to their surprise that they do not own their registered copyrights. Although a corporation may be legally considered a "person" for certain purposes, they are definitely not "human" in any sense of the word.Finally, in this case, although no one questions that the camera equipment belonged to the photographer and the photographer set up the equipment, it was the macaque that actually took the picture.

  • fecundmind

    Highly troubling arguments presented by both parties -one could only hope their household debate leaves us with a republic that could be called humane. The constitution is not to operate like a time-bomb because it is time-invariant which makese sense for any concept claimed to be the law or a principle post for the arrangement whose function is to keep a commercial republic free and clear of authoritative, tree dweller type - never mind their natural status for our is a political schematic. the fact that the institution of slave holdership was abolished and thus this terminated the nature of the relationship that was the inevitable of the arrangement which used humans as a trading property of another person as an owner of the property cannot now be used to exploit it denigrate its intentions reflecting the attained enlightenment. to give animals copyright status means that the federal govt could investigate the animal and wiretap it however this would only give angle for govt to turn if the human hand was present. to imagine the animal fill out its application means that they are ready to join commerce and be entrusted with the public office supported with oath to uphold the constution not change it seasonally or as a matter of effect deliberately schemed to make a more disoriented republican union. monkey selfie is self evident about the current take of the lawyers about the republic and her constituion which they are induced by the unknown into thinking can be used to bargain in exchange for enumerative effects [money, flex credit, honorary titles, private immunities, and not vested selfish privileges etc]. the constitution is a contract and the price of its value imported in its terms is not an effect but a fact therefore no meanigful exchange is plausible. the lawyer could offer interpretation and even see it better than others but what he sees is no moment in discovery and by which his attorney work product could assert to have built upon or transformed into a testable tangible innovation thereby ready to sale. sell what the novel attorney work product of his intellect or the constitution? those searching for their voidable carve outs to take control under the written constitution so that the carved forces its ways in to and in unlike forms to begin with could position itself and as secured by the whole arrangement which by nature of law is concrete may become disfigured and weakened structurally would want the person, officers, lawyers whose self promoting through monkey means became self evidentiary of an intellectual kind showing how far some would go to dictate the constitutional arrangement in terms of time even though contrary to the word law is devoid of it; they are ready and willing to distort the true value of the legal terms ratified by the people into a monetized program for those who can afford to pay to get a sketchy out of our most cherished constitution.

  • N.D.

    Only human persons can be granted copyrights.Speciation is determined at the moment of conception thus every son or daughter of a human person, can only be a human person, and human persons are the only species that exist in relationship as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers.

  • iElvis

    I would have loved to be a fly (or monkey) on the wall when the I&M lawyers pitched this case to their pro bono committee.

  • Colin B Lane

    Have you seen a retainer agreement signed by Naruto? If not, then please refrain from compounding the stupidity of this so called representation. At the very least, please add the adjective "purported" anywhere you use a form of the phrase "monkey‘s lawyers."

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202744095177

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.