LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+48 48 0
Published 1 year ago with 2 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • kxh
    +3

    Wait a bit, I thought a court had ruled Slater couldn't own the copyright because the monkey took it?

  • NinjaKlaus
    +3

    It's very damn clear what happened here, the Judge was inclined and heavily hinted to believe that the monkey took the photo, monkeys can't have a copyright as they aren't human, so that would mean that neither PETA nor the guy who owned the camera was going to be able to claim copyright on the picture, so PETA and the Photographer seeing their cow disappear agreed to this... PETA gets a cut and the Photographer doesn't officially have his copyright stripped.

Here are some other snaps you may like...