Legally, monkey cannot own his/her/its own selfie (i.e., hold its copyright).
See the Guardian piece — interesting ANT teaching case.
Also, rivers can be people, but a monkey cannot take a selfie — what gives?
Legally, monkey cannot own his/her/its own selfie (i.e., hold its copyright).
See the Guardian piece — interesting ANT teaching case.
Also, rivers can be people, but a monkey cannot take a selfie — what gives?
yeah a while back all the intertube kids were excited about “flat” ontologies and “democracies” of objects/species and I kept asking in all seriousness (as serious as one can be while quoting Suess) who will speak for the trees? needless to say they didn’t welcome a reality check or two…
LikeLike
i’m sure they are well indoctrinated into innovation, disruption, free-markets, etc but have no idea about say patent law/enforcement/trolling, you could use the cases from the whack world of big pharma to talk about public and private goods.
did a tour of duty in the realm of medical ethics in northern NJ and the waters were thick with pharma industry types.
LikeLike
be fun to see the legal justification (or even procedure) for “representing” the river…
LikeLike
one does wonder if/how the river could have standing in a court case?
LikeLike
Disappearing commons is a good link, lesson-wise.
LikeLike
I do hope we find out — the legal angles opened-up thanks to such a move are quite intriguing
LikeLike
Looks like they have no way of legally enforcing protection for the river other than granting it personhood . I wonder if somebody can sue another on behalf of the river for public indecency because they decided to do their business in the river
LikeLike
heh, let me know if a river asserts property rights, copyright would indeed be a great teaching topic as would a lesson on the disappearing commons, bet yer students take private property as a given like gravity.
LikeLike