From time to time, we take note — usually favorably — of the doings of our fellow blogger Robert Thomas the keeper of the www.inversecondemnation.com blog. So we are pleased to do it again by joining in his criticism of the federal courts, particularly the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for wasting its time with utter tomfoolery like deciding whether animals can own copyrights. Short answer: they can’t, but what they can do and have done is to devote their time and resources to this utterly frivolous inquiry. Here is Thomas’ post on this subject
April 25, 2018
9th Cir: “Ape Shall Not Sue Ape!” Court Has Time For Silly Monkey Selfie Case, But Not For Takings
“Here’s the not unexpected decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case we’ve been following (sort of). It should never have gotten this far, even as the “plaintiffs” raise the specter of a cert petition.
Here’s the not unexpected decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit:
“We say again: the federal courts seem to have time for this brand of nonsense, but when it comes to land use and takings cases, they won’t be “super zoning boards of appeals,” and almost always refuse to give them the time of day. At least PETA didn’t make a takings claim and further hose up the law.
“Once again, Dr. Zaius could not be reached for comment.
“Rock on, Naruto.”
To this, we should add our own inquiry: if animals can’t hold copyrights nor sue to protect their rights in them, then what about all those cases with nonsensical captions like Arizona Grey Squirrel v. Somebodyorother in which the same court, with what purports to be a straight face, discourses on environmental rights of plaintiff-squirrels and such? So can we now call those “squirrely opinions”?
Afterthought: For the now famous selfie portrait of the plaintiff-monkey, go to Mr. Roberts’ blog www.inversecondemnation.com and see today’s post. Enjoy!