Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#21

Post by latexr »

imgabe wrote: post #15

This reminds me of the Monkey Selfie[1] dispute. A photographer set up a camera in a forest and a monkey came by and activated it and took a picture. The resulting picture became famous and PETA tied up the photographer in court for years trying to get the copyright assigned to the monkey. They ultimately failed and it went to the photographer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

This case is notably different because here the human artists are the ones fighting for the forest’s copyright.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#22

Post by kalleboo »

markdown wrote: post #5
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #3

Probably not everyone's cup of tea but it's not bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxRjncYGLHE (Cosmo Sheldrake is one of the composers, so this seems to be an original upload of the song.)

UNAVAILABLE This video is not available.

Looks like it's blocked in Fiji https://views4you.com/tools/youtube-restrictions-checker/?ur...

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#23

Post by osigurdson »

deepfriedchokes wrote: post #18
bawolff wrote: post #10

Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. At the end of the day, copyright holders have to make decisions about how to exercise their rights, which makes no sense for a tree. Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest.

Perhaps forests should be legal persons?

All of the animals, the flora and the rocks should be legal persons. The only entities that should not be legal entities are the humans (at least humans that I don't know personally) since they cause all of the problems.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#24

Post by osigurdson »

mc32 wrote: post #8

Would subways, oceans, individual birds and roadways also be eligible for this kind of authorship as well when they are included in songs or sounds-tracks? I don't see how this would succeed without opening a can of worms that would muddy a whole lot of things.

Before you know it, the Big Bang will own everything.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#25

Post by hellavapid »

mc32 wrote: post #8

Would subways, oceans, individual birds and roadways also be eligible for this kind of authorship as well when they are included in songs or sounds-tracks? I don't see how this would succeed without opening a can of worms that would muddy a whole lot of things.

the reserve attained legal personhood in 2021, so it isn't exactly in the same category as any of those things. or at least it wouldn't be quite that simple to assign non human things authorship.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#26

Post by bawolff »

latexr wrote: post #19
bawolff wrote: post #10

Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. At the end of the day, copyright holders have to make decisions about how to exercise their rights, which makes no sense for a tree. Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest.

> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruling, the legal personhood of the Los Cedros biological reserve was recognised by Ecuador’s constitutional court in 2021, when it determined to cancel mining permits in the reserve. > Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-pro…

> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given.

By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person).

Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#27

Post by bawolff »

imgabe wrote: post #15

This reminds me of the Monkey Selfie[1] dispute. A photographer set up a camera in a forest and a monkey came by and activated it and took a picture. The resulting picture became famous and PETA tied up the photographer in court for years trying to get the copyright assigned to the monkey. They ultimately failed and it went to the photographer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

> They ultimately failed and it went to the photographer.

Afaik, neither ended up owning the copyright (in usa, britian is more complex). The monkey doesn't own it, but neither does the photographer dude.

An interesting part of the case is it seems like PETA were mostly motivated by their own selfish interests to make money. Which is one of the big problems with nature legal personhood - at some point a human has to make decisions for the natural entity, and interests might be misaligned.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#28

Post by Teever »

bawolff wrote: post #26
latexr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruling, the legal personhood of the Los Cedros biological reserve was recognised by Ecuador’s constitutional court in 2021, when it determined to cancel mining permits in the reserve. > Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-pro…

> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person nor…

The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#29

Post by tsimionescu »

Teever wrote: post #28
bawolff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person nor…

The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.

On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.

Re: Legal bid for Ecuador forest to be recognised as song co-creator

#30

Post by Teever »

tsimionescu wrote: post #29
Teever wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.

On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.

We are in complete agreement.
Post reply on HN