The role of animals in the courts has changed slightly since
Pigs were murderers sometime in the Middle Ages, but that does not mean that
animals have stayed out of court since. For this blog post, I wanted to examine
some other recent cases in which animals were the focus of a court ruling, and
see if there was any connection that could be drawn to the readings, in terms
of how animals were viewed in terms of the law.
The most notable
example to come out in recent years was the “Monkey Selfie” case which was
decided in 2014. Back in 2011, a wildlife photographer traveled Indonesia to
take photos of crested macaques. In the process, one of the monkeys took one of
the cameras, and somehow snapped a
picture or two
which could be identified as a “selfie.”[1]
Wikipedia, who one would think would be an unlikely target for legislation,
became the defendant in a copyright lawsuit after they posted the macaque’s photo
on their website. Slater sued, claiming that the photos were in fact his, and
that Wikipedia could not post the image for free without payment or requesting
the photo from the him. . The Wikimedia company argued that the photos were in
the public domain, as they were taken by the macaque, and macaque’s are not
subject to copyright protection.[2]
Shortly after the controversy, and shortly before the case
were to be brought to court, The U.S Copyright Office released an updated
version of their Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, which governs
what is and isn’t considered to be copyrighted material. In it, they specified that
“Copyright law only protects the fruits of intellectual labor that are founded
in the creative powers of the mind.” Among the items which is declared outside
the bounds of copyright included murals painted by elephants, patterns occurring
in stones or skins, and, in what was certainly not coincidence, “a photograph
taken by a monkey.”[3] Meanwhile,
law in the UK and Indonesia both illustrated that only a human creator of
content could receive copyright protection. With this distinction made by the
Copyright Office and with other laws internationally, the case was ultimately
never brought to court.
So if your dog ever plays fetch with your selfie stick, know
any photos taken are in the public domain.
What about examples in
court? In a paper written by Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago Law
School, Sunstein examined in what cases animals would have legal standing to challenge
their mistreatment, and in what cases humans would be able to raise a challenge
on their behalf. Obviously, an animal cannot walk into a courthouse and file
paperwork, as thumbs and the use of utensils are prerequisites for filling out
said paperwork. But what about representing
an animal, or its interests? As it currently stands, one could not, for
example, represent a wounded bear in suit against a hunter. For one to have
standing on behalf of the animal, a presumptive plaintiff must show three
things. First, that an injury of some sort (physical or mental) has occurred,
second, that it was the result of a defendant’s action, and third, that the
problem would be redressed by a ruling in the plaintiff’s behalf.[4]
If, say, a company’s polluting a riverbed and killing fish, a fisherman could have standing if they can
demonstrate that the conditions have changed to the point that their annual
fishing trip can no longer be undertaken.
That
requirement of a personal, human effect has often been the focal point of arguments
on standing. In one case, Animal Lovers
Volunteer Association v. Weinberger, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin aerial
shooting of goats on a military enclave for which public access is unavailable.
The court held that standing was unavailable because the members did not visit
the enclave hence lacked any concrete injury. On the other hand, in Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Soc.,
the court held that the organizations, who were dedicated to whale watching and
the study of whales, had standing, because the legislation they challenged
would have allowed greater whale fishing and, thus, removed opportunities to
study the animals.[5]
None of
this is to say that animals have the same legal protections as, say, a mailbox
or fence. In 2012, a California court ruled that pets, at least, are
fundamentally different than other forms of property. California’s Second
District Court of Appeals ruled that an aggrieved party was entitled to
compensation greater than just market value for an injured animal. Unlike if a
guitar or furniture was broken, the loss or injury to a domesticated pet would
be greater, tied to emotional distress and other factors.
Obviously,
we have come a long way from Pigs being on trial. Now, with animals lacking
legal standing, we don’t see animals trotted to the gallows. But as humanity
has become more environmentally conscious, we face a new series of issues. As
Duke Philip the Bold of Burgundy had to grant petitions of pardon,[6]
different officials must decide the fate of animals in court. Today, though,
the rule of law is strictly human, and the right to trial is strictly human as
well. We may very well argue the idea of “Animal Rights,” but in terms of the courts,
all rights start with standing, and animals do not have standing now, and may
never. Someday, societies may look back at our relationship to animals as
barbaric, in the same way we look back at pigs on trial and scoff. But for now,
we live in a world in which humans can only protect animals, and only when they
themselves have been harmed.
- Jeramee Gwozdz
[1] Jeong, Sarah. “Wikipedia’s
monkey selfie ruling is a travesty for the world’s monkey artists.” The
Guardian. August 6, 2014. Accessed May 24, 2015
[2] ITN. “Monkey photo not
photographer’s, claims Wikimedia – video.” The Guardian. August 7th,
2014. Accessed May 24, 2015.
[3] Chappell, Bill. "Who
Owns A Monkey's Selfie? No One Can, U.S. Says." NPR. August 22, 2014.
Accessed May 24, 2015.
[4] Sunstein, Cass. “Standing
for Animals.” Chicago Public Law and
Legal Theory. The Law School, The University of Chicago.
[5] Sunstein 18.
[6] Dinzelbacher, Peter. “Animal
Trials A Multidisciplinary Approach.” Journal
of Interdisciplinary history, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002,) pp 405-421.
"But for now, we live in a world in which humans can only protect animals, and only when they themselves have been harmed." This is true--but you are, of course, talking about humans protecting animals from within human structures. Animals can still harm humans physically, with or without human laws! But your comparisons raise interesting parallels. I am particularly struck by the question of copyright: Luke raises the question of culpability in the medieval animal trials. We tend not to think of animals being bound by human moral expectations, and yet, the monkey selfies raise the question of whether animals can exercise creativity in the same way that human beings do. Perhaps what this comparison shows is not so much a change in the way in which human beings bring animals into human legal structures as a change in what human beings (at least in modern Western societies) care about: do we care more about property and creativity than we do morality? RLFB
ReplyDeleteI would be cautious of saying that animals cannot have legal standing in a courtroom. While an animal will never be able to sue someone or be sued, they can, in some contexts, attain a legal status that a court must decide upon. In a couple’s suit, for instance, a court can rule which party will get custody of the dog. While the dog itself isn’t a party to the suit, it still has a legal status that can be determined by the court. The court’s decision may even be determined by the dog’s behavior, that is, which partner the dog shows a preference for. It’s not simply an asset that the court must allocate, but an active participant in the court proceedings. These sorts of decisions are a recent development, naturally, as animal rights movements gain more influence. Several readings pertaining to animal trials pointed out that the legal standing granted to animals didn’t simply make them vulnerable to human cruelty as EP Evans believed, but also suggested that they had certain rights. If there are legal executions of pigs or oxen, there must be extralegal executions as well. Perhaps the expansion of legal rights for animals is a cyclical thing, as the legal rights of animals disappear and reemerge.
ReplyDeleteBKing