Attorneys and their "Monkeying around"

I think I speak for all and say I'm glad the courts have ruled a monkey cannot own a copyright. Phew, that was a close one...What to me seems like insane litigation actually happened and makes me wonder where we're headed here.

A monkey stole a camera from a photographer. The photographer quickly retrieved his camera. Sometime later he realized that the monkey had inadvertently taken a selfie while in possession of the camera.

The photograph eventually ended up on line through, I'm assuming, social media or whatever. Ain't that cute. And the photographer capitalized on the photo's notoriety. End of story? Nope. Just the beginning.

A prominent animal rights group jumped in (representing the monkey's rights) and sued the photographer. Their opinion was the copyright was owned by the monkey and not the photographer. Hence the monkey should receive any forthcoming royalties. It was litigated and the courts ruled (thank God) monkeys cannot own copyrights. We can all draw a collective sigh of relief, right? Nope.

To avoid the persistent aggravation (much like a lingering STD) of future litigation the photographer has agreed with said prominent animal rights group to donate 25% of future royalties from the photo to their cause.

So basically the court suit didn't really mean much; the attorneys for the monkey actually won. They got what they wanted; the money. And this brings to my mind a most fearful thought. Since attorneys can now profit from suing humans over animal's possible rights; how long will it be before some critter gets represented in court in an adverse possession case?

"Your Honor, I'm prepared to prove my client the monkey has met all the requirements of adverse possession upon the defendant's property and is therefor the rightful owner."

It may sound crazy, but so did someone arguing that the monkey could own a copyright. And winning or losing the case would probably be secondary to the amount of money the attorneys could glean from the case.

And if they were smart, they could drag some poor land surveyor into the legal maelstrom with accusations of negligence because the monkey's obvious occupation of the property wasn't properly shown on a survey.

I'm going to quit watching cable news in the morning and find something that makes sense..like a 40 year old episode of Gunsmoke.