A similar toughie: if you're a primitive tribesman and a monkey takes your picture, stealing your soul in the process, does the monkey own that soul? I think one can make a strong argument for Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch makes sense to the primitive animist with an angry sky god. Make a company to harvest souls, then you have a big pyramid to stand in the lake of fire. Simple, really.
Unrelated, however it seems like it should be a Which State (except it's the wrong state for that): Black man jailed for five days for trying to cash Chase check at Chase bank (http://www.king5.com/news/125105599.html)
i can't see the excitement here. but then, i *am* a lawyer ...
whilst animals have some legal rights, and can benefit *from* property, i'm not aware of any animal (other than human beings) actually being able to *own* property (or hold property rights). thus the rights would go to the 'nearest' 'competent' person (natural or legal) - in this case, the photographer.
[all those millionaire dogs and such are actually beneficiaries in equity of trusts, where the trustee/s are human. trusts separate the 'legal' and 'equitable' titles in property. trustee holds legal title, beneficiary the equitable title.]
*shrugs* probably the owner of the camera, unless there was some agreement with the owner of the monkey.
copyright subsists in the 'creator' of a 'work'. decide who that is, and you're done. law still tends to treat animal behaviour a lot like acts of nature: sudden, without intention, but open to the influence of people with respect to causation/severity.
[also, i'm (now) an academic lawyer in australia. my previous practice was in australian criminal and civil litigation, with a side order of military/armed conflict law. my focus these days is largely law regarding privacy, and (national) security, and technology.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-07 09:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 06:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-07 10:13 pm (UTC)Live action Dreamworks movie?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-08 06:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-08 12:32 pm (UTC)i can't see the excitement here. but then, i *am* a lawyer ...
whilst animals have some legal rights, and can benefit *from* property, i'm not aware of any animal (other than human beings) actually being able to *own* property (or hold property rights). thus the rights would go to the 'nearest' 'competent' person (natural or legal) - in this case, the photographer.
[all those millionaire dogs and such are actually beneficiaries in equity of trusts, where the trustee/s are human. trusts separate the 'legal' and 'equitable' titles in property. trustee holds legal title, beneficiary the equitable title.]
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-09 11:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-09 11:23 pm (UTC)Jesus.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-10 02:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-10 02:28 am (UTC)'its => 'tis o.o
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-10 01:40 am (UTC)copyright subsists in the 'creator' of a 'work'. decide who that is, and you're done. law still tends to treat animal behaviour a lot like acts of nature: sudden, without intention, but open to the influence of people with respect to causation/severity.
[also, i'm (now) an academic lawyer in australia. my previous practice was in australian criminal and civil litigation, with a side order of military/armed conflict law. my focus these days is largely law regarding privacy, and (national) security, and technology.]
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-11 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-12 10:19 am (UTC)pleasure. (it was less inane than some of my student's exam answers >.<)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-09 11:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-10 02:27 am (UTC)i tend to get a little pissy with all the unwarranted attention on 'ip' these days, tis all.
mind you, ip would be less 'exciting' if american ip law didn't insist that ip owners litigate any and every possible incursion on their 'rights'...