The Monkey Selfie (Naruto v. Slater) The Facts: While in Indonesia, nature photographer David Slater left his camera on a tripod. A macaque monkey named Naruto took the camera and snapped several selfies, including a famous grinning portrait. The images went viral. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) sued Slater, claiming the copyright belonged to the monkey. Who owns the intellectual property: the owner of the equipment or the one who physically took the photo? Can a non-human be a legal "author"?, The US Court of Appeals ruled that while animals can have constitutional rights, the Copyright Act does not extend to them. However, Slater later agreed to donate 25% of future revenue from the photos to charities protecting macaques., The Case of the "Spilled Coffee" (Liebeck v. McDonald's) In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on her lap while sitting in a parked car. She initially asked for $20,000 to cover medical bills, but McDonald's offered only $800. She took them to court, alleging the coffee was "defectively dangerous." Is a business responsible for an adult spilling their own drink? Was the coffee "too hot," or was the customer just "careless"?, A jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages (later reduced). According to the American Museum of Tort Law, it was proven that McDonald’s kept coffee at 180–190°F—hot enough to cause near-instant third-degree burns—and had ignored 700 previous burn reports., The Right to be Forgotten (Google Spain v. AEPD) A Spanish man found that when he searched his name on Google, the first result was a 1998 newspaper notice about his home being auctioned to pay off debts. Since he had settled those debts years ago, he argued the information was no longer relevant and was damaging his reputation. Should search engines be forced to remove truthful, public information if it is "old"? Does "the right to know" outweigh "the right to privacy"?, The European Court of Justice ruled in favor of the man. This created the "Right to be Forgotten," allowing EU citizens to request that search engines delink "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" personal data., The "Vantablack" Monopoly Vantablack is the world’s darkest man-made substance, absorbing 99.96% of light. In 2016, the famous sculptor Anish Kapoor struck a deal with the creators (Surrey NanoSystems) to be the only artist in the world allowed to use the pigment. This sparked fury among other artists, who claimed no one should "own" a color. Is it legal to monopolize a material for artistic expression? How could other artists fight back?, Legally, the contract held. However, artist Stuart Semple retaliated by creating the "World’s Pinkest Pink" and banning Anish Kapoor from buying it. Anyone who buys Semple’s paint must sign a legal declaration that they are not Kapoor and are not affiliated with him., The "Blurred Lines" Dispute (Williams v. Gaye) Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams released the hit "Blurred Lines" in 2013. The family of soul legend Marvin Gaye sued them, claiming the song copied the "feel" and "groove" of Gaye’s 1977 song Got to Give It Up, even though the melodies and lyrics were completely different. Can you copyright a "vibe" or a style of music? If two songs sound similar but have different notes, is it theft?, In a shocking move for the music industry, the court awarded Marvin Gaye's estate over $5 million. This case set a massive precedent, making artists much more cautious about "homages" to older music., The "Stolen" Nazi Art (Republic of Austria v. Altmann) Maria Altmann, an elderly Jewish refugee, sued the Austrian government to recover five paintings by Gustav Klimt (including the famous Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I). The paintings had been seized from her family by the Nazis in 1938. Austria argued the paintings were a "national treasure" and had been legally willed to the state. Does a state have the right to keep "national heritage" if the original acquisition was immoral? Can a person sue a foreign government in a local court?, After a Supreme Court battle and international arbitration, the paintings were returned to Altmann in 2006. She later sold the main portrait for $135 million. (This case inspired the film Woman in Gold).

RM B2+ Unit 3B

by
Print
Embed

Leaderboard

Visual style

Options

Switch template

Continue editing: ?