Certainly some of PETA's donors are thrilled. This was PETA testing the legal waters for the acceptance of broader animal rights and how far that extends at this point in time culturally (laws eventually tend to shift with cultural changes). They will continue to do this sort of thing perpetually for that reason. Given the radical, extremely broad cultural change in just the last ~20-30 years toward animal welfare, it's almost guaranteed PETA will land a victory in a case like this in just another few decades.
Here is PETAs numbers compared to one of the local shelters:
> the Lynchburg Humane Society, also in Virginia, took in about the same number of animals as PETA but saved 94% and without PETA’s millions. Seagoville Animal Services in Texas took in 1/3 of the numbers (about 700 animals) but only 1/20th of 1% of the amount of money that PETA did, saving 99% of them on a paltry $29,700 budget. In fact, hundreds of cities and towns across America are saving over 90% of the animals and doing so on a fraction of PETA’s wealth.
This PETA quote offers some explanation:
> It’s easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the “dirty work” caused by a throwaway society’s casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals — even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn’t have enough heart or homes with room for them.
And:
> the vast majority of which were “owner surrenders,” meaning that they’d been relinquished to PETA voluntarily.
If PETA gets all of the re-homable pets that all of the no-kill shelters denies, then I understand why their numbers are so bad, I wonder how it compares to the public run shelters.
The no-kill shelters also needs to answer for what to do with all of the dogs that can't find a home due to illness, behavioural problems or aggression, is a life in kennels the best we can offer them? And what about the space that a non-re-homeable pet takes from a re-homeable pet?
There have been stories of no-kill shelters that would "donate" their pets they can't re-home to another entity, that will then do the killing.
But in the end, and I think this needs to be addressed, all of the shelters are trying to solve a problem that is created by irresponsible breeders and owners.
The situation in the US is insane at the moment, and there simply isn't kennel space or homes for all of the pets that needs it.
Sorry for the long message, but this issue isn't as black and white, and I have done a lot of thinking on the subject, but I haven't seen a solution that I prefer.
They should be: settlement or no, I think this case is a win for PETA.
I don't believe PETA ever went into this expecting to actually win copyright privileges for animals. I think they intended to create a 'chilling effect' around animal photography and any kinds of entertainment they see as 'exploiting' nonhuman species. The further the case goes, the more risky that will look as a commercial endeavour.
The case also raises the profile of the organization. This is not just for vanity: it's how pressure groups try and take hold of the agenda and gain a platform for their views.
The interesting part with all this is that Peta’s argument actually won: The photographer has no rights to the photo, and can not collect any royalties.
Because you don’t have any copyright to photos made with your camera, but only to photos made by you.
PETA argued that the monkey should have copyright in the photo. That argument was rejected by the district court, and didn't look super promising in the appeals court oral argument.
There was a separate discussion about whether the photographer could have copyright in the photo, in particular the Wikimedia Foundation claimed he should not. That discussion has not been tried in court at all, and it seems far from certain (lots of legal commenters disagreed).
He could've deleted the photo. Instead he had the right to copy the photo and as exclusive owner that was his exclusive copyright. At which point would that have been lost?
Copyright protection only applies if you, personally, had a major share in creating something.
A good example are music remixes, you need to actually contribute a lot yourself to have copyright.
If your camera gets stolen by someone, and they take a picture, without you having any influence in that, you do not own the picture. You can not force people who want to use it to pay.
A camera thieve shouldn't profit from a misdeed, and the picture shouldn't be in the public domain by default. So, the photo has to be deleted because noone can claim copyright?
No, he actually won at first, but the US agencies responsible for it agreed that PETAs arguments were true.
You can not own copyright of something you didn't created, when someone — be it a toddler or an animal — steals your camera and takes a photo, you do not own it.
Now the real question is if the animal owns the photo, or if no one does.
But US law allows unintuitively that animals can own things, and manage them. As lots of rich people had the idea to set a pet as their heir in their will, precedent was made for that.
So the only question is if the court would follow the precedent, or follow the agencies' opinion that the image is public domain.
Which led to the settlement, which argues that 25% of the image belongs to the management of the habitat where the ape lives, and the rest to the photographer.
