Tag: Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Ends “Monkey Selfie” Boondoggle

If for no reason other than the fact that I’m out of monkey jokes, I’m pleased to announce that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has finally put an end to PETA’s ridiculous litigation in which the organization alleged that the Sulawesi crested macaque in the photograph known as the “monkey selfie” is rightfully the owner of the copyright in the image. After photographer David Slater had his copyright—one could argue—stripped by the blogosphere, he was then forced to defend himself in this preposterous claim by the “animal rights” organization. So, I’m glad for his sake that this bit of absurdist theater is finally over.

Both the majority and concurring opinions focus primarily on PETA’s claim that it had standing in court to act as “next friend” on behalf of the named plaintiff—the macaque whom they randomly called Naruto. “Next friends” are typically representatives of individual claimants who cannot advocate for themselves—minors, mentally or physically impaired persons, or imprisoned persons. A “next friend” must show proper relationship to the allegedly injured party and that they are truly representing the injured party’s interests rather than some other agenda while posing as a “next friend.” In the concurring opinion, Judge Smith writes …

“Animal-next-friend standing is particularly susceptible to abuse. Allowing next-friend standing on behalf of animals allows lawyers [citation omitted] and various interest groups [citation omitted] to bring suit on behalf of those animals or objects with no means or manner to ensure the animals’ interests are truly being expressed or advanced. Such a change would fundamentally alter the litigation landscape. Institutional actors could simply claim some form of relationship to the animal or object to obtain standing and use it to advance their own institutional goals with no means to curtail those actions. We have no idea whether animals or objects wish to own copyrights or open bank accounts to hold their royalties from sales of pictures.”

And there’s this biting comment in the footnotes of the majority opinion …

“… in the wake of PETA’s proposed dismissal, Naruto is left without an advocate, his supposed “friend” having abandoned Naruto’s substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA’s institutional interests. Were he capable of recognizing this abandonment, we wonder whether Naruto might initiate an action for breach of confidential relationship against his (former) next friend, PETA, for its failure to pursue his interests before its own. Puzzlingly, while representing to the world that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way,” [citation omitted] PETA seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals.”

It is admittedly a little disappointing that the court rejected PETA’s standing to represent the monkey in this case only because it might at least have been entertaining to read the opinion of the court on the copyright claim itself. Don’t get me wrong, I think the proposal that an animal can own a copyright is facially absurd—straining at the boundaries of even the most extreme anthropomorphism. Still, it might have been fun to watch the court inquire how, for instance, this primate resident of Indonesia managed to register “his” copyright in the United States in order to be eligible for statutory damages. And that list goes on.

As mentioned in an older post, one of PETA’s fatal flaws is the assumption that ownership of a copyright implies only commercial exploitation and, relatedly, the kind of litigation it brought on behalf of “animals everywhere.” But that’s not what copyright means. Copyright means choice. It means the author may choose the manner in which a work is exploited, and since an animal cannot express that kind of choice—at least not in any language we understand so far—even if PETA had standing, it would find its claims swirling around an ever-widening drain of absurd logic.

Copyright is complicated enough without asking the courts to read the minds of animals. I’m glad we can finally move on from this one.

Ninth Circuit Says VidAngel’s Wings Made of Wax

(Angel image by in8finity)

“Drat! Phooey! Shucks!” must be what the folks at VidAngel are saying after this morning’s opinion was handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Disney Enterprises v. VidAngel. Affirming the decision of a California district court, the panel agreed that the movie studio plaintiffs would very likely prevail on the merits in all of the triable issues in the case. Thus, the preliminary injunction ordered by the lower court will stand, and VidAngel will not be allowed to operate as it had been while the company considers whether or not they will take its case to trial. I’m going to bet they won’t.

See detailed description of VidAngel in post from February.

VidAngel had been running what amounts to an unlicensed, video on demand (VOD) service, streaming mainstream movies with a filtering option for customers who prefer not to experience swearing, nudity, blasphemy, and/or other “objectionable” material in their movies. Several major studios sued VidAngel for copyright infringement; and VidAngel sought to defend its model, with all the verve of Icarus, by means of some rather strenuous interpretations of the Family Home Movie Act (FMA), Section 1201 of the DMCA, and the fair use doctrine. The Ninth Circuit opinion is unambiguous in its disagreement with all of the defendant’s statutory interpretations. For instance, here’s a pull-quote regarding VidAngel’s defensed under the FMA:

“VidAngel’s interpretation would create a giant loophole in copyright law, sanctioning infringement so long as it filters some content and a copy of the work was lawfully purchased at some point. But, virtually all piracy of movies originates in some way from a legitimate copy. If the mere purchase of an authorized copy alone precluded infringement liability under the FMA, the statute would severely erode the commercial value of the public performance right in the digital context, permitting, for example, unlicensed streams which filter out only a movie’s credits.”

Like many tech businesses that depend on copyright infringement, VidAngel spent considerable effort trying to litigate its cause in the court of public opinion with a “Save Filtering” campaign. This is common practice: to sell the message that a particular business model is merely an extension of consumer rights. And although many of VidAngel’s fans are likely to view this decision as “anti-filtering,” those consumers should know that VidAngel violated at least three statutes, even without the filtering; and its attempt to argue their right to filter on behalf of consumers shoots far beyond the mark of either the intent or the language of the FMA.

It’s hard to imagine any VidAngel investors* are going to want to pursue what looks like an un-winnable case, but maybe they’ll be spared a worse fate. Because if they tried to put, say, Deadpool through their system, the place would probably explode.

*See comments.

Angels and Monkeys at Appeals Court

Photo sources by artush & prudkov

 

 

 

 

 

Readers can be forgiven for focusing on court news other than copyright stories these days, but lest you think all the fun is emanating from the White House, here are two items of note this week…

VidAngel Appeals Injunction

The Ninth Circuit, in the spotlight for ruling against Trump’s executive order known as the travel ban, heard oral arguments on June 8 in the Disney v. VidAngel case. As described in this post, VidAngel’s business model is effectively a Video On Demand (VOD) service that provides filtering for consumers who want to see mainstream fare without “objectionable” scenes that might include sex, nudity, profanity, blasphemy, and (I don’t know) rainbows?

The studios sued on the grounds that VidAngel’s model violates the rights of reproduction and public performance under Section 106 of the Copyright Act as well as prohibitions against “ripping” DVDs under Section 1201 of the DMCA. VidAngel has tried to argue that its business model is legal because its customers have the right to “filter” under the provisions of the Family Home Movie Act (2005). In December of 2016, the District Court for the Central District of California granted an injunction, pausing VidAngel’s activity, holding that the studios would be expected to prevail on the merits across all triable issues. VidAngel then appealed that injunction to the Ninth Circuit.

As Ashley Cullins reports for The Hollywood Reporter, a hot mic captured Judge Carlos T. Bea whisper to his colleague Andrew D. Hurwitz, “I think this one’s a lot easier,” meaning, of course, in contrast to the travel ban debacle, but quite possibly indicating that the District Court’s injunction will be allowed to stand. Attorney Donald Verrilli, counsel for the studios, stated, “What they’re essentially saying is ‘if we filter, we can stream without a license.’” And that about sums it up. Meanwhile, he also was clear to state that his clients are not opposed to filtering as permitted by the FMA, adding that technology provider ClearPlay, which enables home filtering, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the studios.

Assuming the injunction is sustained and the case is remanded for trial, it will be interesting to see if VidAngel’s executives decide that their evangelical mission is more important than a return on investment. Because it seems quite clear that there is nothing legal about their business model.

Who Knew Copyright for Monkeys Was Still in Play?

In a more extreme example of ideologically-charged litigation, also on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, it turns out that the organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is still ape over the idea that a primate can own a copyright. For anyone who missed it, the animal rights organization, in September of 2015, sued British photographer David Slater and US publisher Blurb on the grounds that both had infringed the copyrights of a Sulawesi black crested macaque who apparently snapped her own photograph with Slater’s camera. Under the circumstances, Slater’s copyright ownership of the image was called into question by the Wikimedia Foundation and was debated online—in good faith and bad—by various constituencies.

In my view, Slater’s claim has merit if, as described on his blog, he purposely set up the camera and used what he’d learned about the monkeys’ curiosity to create the conditions for the selfie to be made. He writes …

“I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens.  I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens.”

Based on American case law to date, this non-attorney thinks that should be sufficient to hold that Slater owns the copyright, whereas if the camera were in fact picked up serendipitously by the macaque and snapped—conditions that would almost never produce the image in question, by the way—Slater’s claim would probably be very weak under U.S. law. Regardless, only PETA would think to argue that the monkey herself can own a copyright; and in their complaint, they relied on the testimony of primatologist Dr. Antje Englehardt as a “next friend” of the monkey plaintiff.

As of last week, however, counsel for the defendants have stated that PETA should be viewed by the court as lacking the standing to represent the macaque’s interests in light of the fact that Dr. Englehardt was recently arrested for harassing PETA’s lead counsel. “Regardless of the merits or outcome of the criminal case against Dr. Engelhardt,” write Slater’s attorneys, “its very existence is a relevant consideration on whether PETA can adequately represent the interests of Naruto,* notwithstanding the documented animosity that has developed between PETA and Dr. Engelhardt.” Okay but…

A “next friend” in common law is a person who represents another person because the latter is either a minor or has been deemed incompetent—not because he/she has been deemed a monkey! While pundits like Mike Masnick at Techdirt focus attention on the non-existence of any copyright in the “monkey selfie” (which is debatable as described), what is unquestionably non-existent in this case is any animal’s standing to enforce a copyright in U.S. court.

This was made quite clear when Judge Orrick of the California District Court for the Northern District stated that he could find no evidence in the statute that animals are entitled to own a copyright in the United States. That ought to about settle the matter. Because, frankly, whether one takes a utilitarian view of IP, a natural rights view, or some combination of the two, Orrick’s holding should seem forbiddingly tautological for most plaintiffs, even those with the anthropomorphic zeal of PETA.

*PETA has named the macaque “Naruto,” though Slater states that the monkey is a female others have named “Ella.”