Reply to post: hmm

hmm

The premise behind the case is that non-homosapiens are entitled to the same protection of the law as humans under copyright law and presumably right to privacy. However one would presume that in the event that a human had his photograph taken then it would require that human to seek redress himself rather than a collection of interested but unaffected parties. What evidence has been presented to show that Naruto sought out the services of this group or agreed for said group to represent him.

Would a human in a similar situation be afforded the same right to dictate the use of images taken by him on another's recording equipment in what can only be seen as a public location. If this premise were indeed true then why do we see so many images of people on CCTV and TV shows like COPS etc, these images are presumably taken without the consent of the subject.

My understanding is that the owner of an animal held in capitivity or at least someone who can show that they provide for the animal's food and care can claim ownership but it is the human rather than the animal who has been infringed. Does the peta group claim ownership of Naruto and/or all the other wild animals in this area and what evidence do they use to show that they have provided for any of the animals where Naruto lives.

If as the complaint seem to imply they have been instructed by Naruto to progress this claim then presumably they had to show some proof that Naruto has given explicit consent for them to represent the animal's interests. Without said consent then any group could seek damages against any party without their consent or even knowledge. Can peta prove that Naruto is aware of and supporting the actions of this group?

Basically unless peta can show they are the owner of Naruto's or the location where the image was captured or that they have a legal contract with the Naruto then they have no involvement whatsoever.