@@tlgmc1908 except for it was determined she wasn’t mentally fit at the time of writing that version of the will-paranoia is associated with dementia and that statement could’ve very much been a response to an imagined slight
@@katla_phc I mean, who gives a shit? It's her money. Her life's work. Nobody should be entitled to it. It's so irritating hearing from the "we know what's good for you" crowd trying to protect us idiots from our own apparent inability to make correct decisions.
Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = Contract You could make the case that if the law recognises the ability of the animal to assent, then yes, it's a legally enforceable contract! 😁
You know interesting bit of trivia: "Yellow Dog" is actually a catch-all term for stray breeds that comes form the weird tendency for domesticated dogs to crossbreed into what's essentially a Dingo in wherever a large feral breeding population is established. There are a few that are recognized as breeds but mostly they're just a convergent development into a roughly medium-sized canine generalist with maybe a bit of drift from common local domesticated breeds.
Well, dingoes are awesome. Unfortunately, due to stray and feral dogs cross breeding with wild dingoes in Western Australia, dingoes have lost their status as a native animal, and are now being hunted. Thankfully, the last completely pure population of dingoes (on Fraser Island, Queensland, which is also the largest sand island in the world), is fully protected. The unfortunate part is that the island is also a popular tourist destination, and there have been run ins with the local dingo population. But if you go to Fraser Island, that’s the risk you take.
@@jimmynyarlathotep6857 How is it strange? Being descended from an animal doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of that animal. If that was the case we'd all be smaller and have prehensile feet and a tail.
Queen of Mean was sentenced to 16 years in prison. She served 19 months in jail and spent 2 months on house arrest. "We aren't held accountable for our actions. Only the little people are held accountable for their actions."
Look at Trump. Loads of crimes. Including those he's already been found guilty of - Trump University, the Trump charity thefts. Penalty of fines, no jail time even suggested. If you can afford the accountants and lawyers, crime does pay.
If you have enough money to shovel into enough pockets, you can get away with anything. Including tax evasion (which, ironically, helps you have the money to shovel).
That's the way it's always been in all of human history and it's completely non-partisan. Trump put his immediate family into positions of power, Biden did the exact same thing in the Obama years and is doing it again, the Clinton Foundation was a thinly veiled money laundering scheme for bribes and even that prick "Affluenza" kid who killed a few people while driving drunk and then fled the country. History is full of examples and that's just some of the big recent ones.
The truth of the matter is that it most often does not matter what you crime you've committed,provided you've got an adequate legal defense to refute it.Its a sad,broken system.
As a photojournalist at the time, I remember the monkey selfie copyright case being a big deal in the industry. Also your tiny floof of a dog is adorable. :3
The Pet Trust is interesting, especially since my grandmother, who sadly passed away recently, only had a handshake agreement with her son, my dad, to take care of her cat Fluffy. She simply asked him to care for her and he agreed. Fluffy is thankfully adjusting well to her new home and owners.
I figure that's just about how most pet trusts are created, just with the money the owner set aside for food/vet expenses thrown into the deal. As he said, most pet trusts are completely uncontroversial.
When the pet trust is "my son Jeff has agreed to take care of my cat Fluffy," there's almost nothing to argue over. When it's "I place ten million dollars in trust to care for my cat Fluffy," that's when Aunt Sally tries to sue Jeff claiming that mom wanted HER to care for the ten million dollars-er I mean, care for Fluffy.
Sorry about your grandma. *hugs* I think pet trust is for when you don't trust the humans. My sister knows she can send hers here if need be, since she would also be sending her son and we aren't mean enough to not accept his 2 pets, too.
@@eliscanfield3913 On the contrary, pet trusts probably happen most often when you *do* trust the human, because most people wouldn't leave their fur baby in the care of someone they didn't trust in the first place. The pet trust is just a formal (or informal, if established over a handshake agreement as most wills are) way to say that you're also giving the new owner of your pet some money out of a desire to help them out in their new role as a pet owner. It's really worth it to remember that the case he mentioned in the video was mentioned specifically because it was a noteworthy outlier, *not* because it's the way pet trusts usually play out.
and those little bastards are just mean enough to rat you out! You read where they had to separate the parrots at that zoo in England? They kept teaching each other curse words and were cussing at the guests.
Objection 4:48 : According to German law pets can not inherit property. They lack the legal capacity, just like in US law. You can determine someone how inherits the pet (and the money) under the condition that this someone takes could care of the pet (this has to be checked as well).
Correct. And from what I have read Lagerfeld stipulated that the money should go to the pets caretaker. So if I understand this correctly this like the pet trusts in US law.
This sounds like a reasonable way to treat cases like this. 'While [animal] does not hold to full rights provided to humans by the law, arrangements are in place for those case-classes where it makes sense to act as if they did'
According to local legend, when Sunol, California was looking to incorporate, the state told them they'd need a mayor. So, the population looked at each other and said "Anybody wanna be mayor?" Nobody answered for several seconds until somebody said: "My dog might be a good mayor." And that's how Bosco got elected in the first place. True? I can't say. But it's plausible.
Imagine waking up one day with death in your eyes, go to court to see what boring cases await you, and in the list you see "PeTA + Naruto vs Slater". And you thought this was going to be a boring day XD
@@franl155 The Queen Of Mean Woman Legal Eagle 🦅 Mentioned Was Used To Make A Law And Order SVU Episode I Always Thought That Episode Was Inspired By A True Story Legal Eagle 🦅 Should Review It 🦅💩🍕🧐🤓😎😎?.
"It depends" reminds me of my tenure as a Building Inspector. That's the almost universal answer to questions relating to building a structure, methods, materials, size and height are all dependant on other factors.
@White wolf It's what happens when you get an organization of fanatics. The actual issue/belief doesn't really matter. Religious fanatics? You get groups like ISIS and the Taliban. Animal rights? You get those who think all domesticated animals should be euthanized. Left wing politics? You get Stalin and Hitler. Libertarian politics? You get Rapture in Bioshock.
OBJECTION! MISLEADING! "The Monkey Selfie" case was actually first brought forward in Wikimedia v. David Slater back in 2011 when Wikimedia hosted the selfie image and took the official stance that it was actually public domain. The case went on for a LONG time and the statement and clarification issued by the US Copyright Office in 2014 was in direct response to the Wikimedia v. David Slater case. And then all the legal experts weighing in on David Slater's claim to authorship was all in response to the Wikimedia v. David Slater case. The Naruto et al (represented by PETA) v. David Slater case wasn't brought up until 2015, after the US Copyright Office had already made the clarification and after the copyright of the Monkey Selfie had already been called into question with David Slater already losing his claim. Though David Slater still tried to claim authorship. All in all, people were already abuzz on the issue and David Slater had already lost A LOT of money long before PETA came in trying to argue that in fact the monkey should own the copyright.
It all seems dumb. Monkey or not, if you take a picture with someone else's property, the photo should belong to the owner of the equipment, unless specified otherwise. Otherwise, someone can steal your camera and take pictures with it and have the right to them.
@@jenat82, that reasoning has some pretty severe limits. A host of examples, including spycam and revenge porn publishers come to mind. These folks shouldn't be able to profit without the permission of the subjects in the recording, regardless of who owns the recording equipment. Similarly, photographing my painting shouldn't convert my IP to yours, simply because you used your own camera.
@@波紋小石 well paintings already have that copyright protection, and in the U.S. 42 of the 50 states and Washington D.C. have declared revenge porn straight up illegal, so that's outside of copyright law.
@@kannonball5789 Thanks for the legal ed. That looks like good news for painters and recorded ex's, unless you live in one of those 8 holdout states. Why holdout? :( I’m a little puzzled by, "outside of copyright law." In most areas of law (esp. civil/criminal), overlap helps. I got the impression copyright law could help at the screening stage. For example, "is this your IP? Prove the subjects consent." I can imagine AI could pick up potential violators and screen them out. But maybe publishers would only do so if copyright law gave subjects rights to that IP. Your point gives me good reason to check.
@@donizekor2215 Yes, those persons have rights and interests. But a group of people is not a person unto itself. A group of people is just a group of people each with individual rights and interests. I mean sure, let a group of people be a distinct legal entity because that's a useful concept, but that entity doesn't require human rights unto itself.
a sleuth of bears vs. a murder of crows 😁. and the grouchy, quirky, annoying lead detective should be a raven, because a group of ravens is called an unkindness.
@edingerc - but aren’t the bears of Jellystone the ones committing the crime? 🤔. Fairly sure there’d be far less pick-i-nick basket theft without them at the very least. 😜
@@nonyabizness.original Unlikely. The bastards destroyed him financially for no reason. How much money do you think a photographer makes? Edit: If he did, kudos to him. He deserved nothing of that shit. Each and everyone in PETA should get sued for owning a pet at some point in their lives, which by their definition is slavery. You know. To set an example. Who cares if they all have to file for bankrupcy? It's for a good cause.
@@JuMiKu Also I think we should definitely kill every of Peta's owned or protected dogs, cats, or even insects eating birds. All those are carnivors after all, "murderers" in their own twisted minds.
Nah, he was the old lady's employee not her next of kin; the only ways for him to get any her money or property upon her death would be for him to marry her (unlikely) or for her to make a will stating that she left stuff to him. If he tried to contest her leaving her capital and estate to the cats on the basis that cats can't own property, he might win the case but it wouldn't get him anything out of it.
What's hilarious,is that if NO ONE paid taxes,there's literally nothing that would happen.Youre not going to jail entire country.The fact we still pay taxes is because we are too afraid to stop.Its really funny like that.Its kind of like a group hallucination.
@@jeffdroog Libertarians: "no no they're not taxes, I'm just asking you to pay me to live on the land I own and then I'll defend you with my army if you get attacked: it's a basic contract" Also Libertarians: "Taxation is Theft!"
Yeah, I swear I remember watching something about a town that would only elect pets as their “mayor”. It’s basically just a ceremonial position, the human council actually runs stuff, and it’s a great fundraiser. I approve.
When you started talking about animals making art, it reminded me of the Star Trek: Voyager episode 'Author, Author.' In that episode, The Doctor, a Hologram, had created a holonovel that was distributed without his consent due to the publisher claiming that because The Doctor is not a person and so had no control over his artistic creation. This led to a hearing where ultimately the definition of "artist" was granted to The Doctor. It's a fairly similar concept to Measure Of A Man, since it had to do with if The Doctor was a person. It's not as lawyerly/courty as Measure of A Man though, so maybe that's why you haven't done a video on it, but it would be cool to see you react to it.
The Federation seems to be a post-money society, so the concept of compensation for authorial works seems moot. While there might be an argument for moral rights of the author, the right of distribution does not make any sense when the Doctor could never benefit from the copyright monopoly anyway. This goes beyond whether he's a non-person with personhood rights, but rather whether copyright would even exist in a society where there is no ability to receive compensation for works.
@@BlakeMcCringleberry You could argue that in a post scarcity society that money would be in the form of reputation or renown. So In that case the copyright holder could just steal the art from the "non existent person". Good episodes tho . Wish newer star trek had more of that.
Based on requirements for political offices in the US, the highest office that a pet can achieve in the US is governor of Kansas, due to having no requirements in order to be a candidate for the position's election.
About a year and nobody's made a Toto joke for this? C'mon, UA-camrs. Here you go. "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore - you don't have jurisdiction."
That was a long time ago. These days the Republicans and many Democrats have gutted the IRS so thoroughly that it can only afford to go after small individual tax evaders.
My husband always tells me that in the event of his death all his money is going to our cat and I get an allowance for taking care of him. He's so dumb. I don't need an incentive. I love that animal more than he does.
There actually is. Pretty much every rule book for every sport is a list of things that are allowed, not prohibited. If a dog can't sign a contract, it can't play on a professional team of any sort. You'd have to get down to like 5-7 year olds for it to even be plausible for it to be allowed, and even then it is probably a no.
I was thinking of this one the whole time. For those that don't know the story, a white oak in Athens, GA was willed the land that it grew on by the land's previous owner. While not an any way legally binding, the town just rolled with it. About a hundred years later, the tree had died and finally fell. The residents planted one of the tree's acorns in the plot, which in turn grew into a new tree and they declared that this new tree, being the direct offspring of the previous, would legally inherit the same small plot of land.
When i was a kid my mother got a sweet gig as the caretakers for 5 cats and a house for a deceased Dr. and his wife. Got to live rent and utility free for years!
A friend of mine runs a dog rehab, she was left a GSD and 15k a year until the half million estate runs out with the proviso that she builds the dogs in her care a massive swimming pool.
It's very important to find someone who you can trust that will take your animals in, should you pass before they do. As a bird owner, this is a difficult task.
I don’t know what type of birds you have or where you live but there are lots of bird sanctuaries that might accept them. When my daughter was a newborn, my cockatoo decided she needed to die. I talked about it in my bird Facebook group and found a lady that would adopt him. That’s almost 30 years ago and we lost touch but for around 15 years we’d talk and she’d send me pics.
A friend of mine has a similar problem: She breeds cats, but isn't the kind, who rehomes retired ones, so she has a lot of cats. She tried make me take on the responsibility several times. As much as I love animals, I have my own family and pets to care for. I won't take in a dozen cats no matter what and she needs to know that, so she looks for help elsewhere.
Especially for birds and the large creatures like horses, I'd imagine. I could easily handle a dog or cat, but birds take special care, don't they? A friend is the home of last resort for elderly and/or terminally ill birds, because her bird specialist vet can trust her to treat them well and give them as good a life as possible.
Yea. Birds and tortoises may not only outlive you, but your children. If you think birds are hard to find a home for, try a 100+ lb giant lant tortoise.
I used to work for a commercial real estate firm. One of the tenants in an office building we owned in D.C. was PETA. The building maintenance man told me one time "PETA may be kind to animals, but they sure aren't nice to humans." Lol
I read quite a few stories of how a pet owner lost custody of a perfectly healthy pet in a divorce to a partner that would immediately "euthanize"(using that term loosely) said pet immediately afterward out of spite. Are there now or will we ever see protections against such acts?
I wonder when the law in France was changed. The Disney movie The Aristcats was based on a story that a rich woman died and left her fortune to her cats.
do you think peta genuinely thinks the monkey has an interest in copyright holding or do you think they wanted monkeys to have some sort of legally recognized personhood
@@prophetreasoning7817 if the result turned out differently, and laws were passed in favour of PETA, there's going to be chaos for anyone who takes photos of their pets. This whole lawsuit was overall very dumb, and I'd dare say it's borderline frivolous. Instead of suing a photographer out of his money for a phenomenon that may never happen again, why can't people just marvel at how interesting a thing a monkey taking its own picture is??
Although thisb law suit might have helped us a lot now in the world of AI art. As only art made by humans is copyrightable it's very likely it would protect artists
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 How would any verdict in this case effect people who take photos of their pets??? Even if the judge decided that all non humans had the same rights as adult humans, it wouldn't effect people taking photos of their pets... You can take pictures of other people and own the rights to those photos.
So, I grew up in San Jacinto, California which is near Idyllwild. It's REALLY worth the visit if you're ever out that way. I recomend Candy Cupboard and Café Aroma. I live in Colorado now, and visiting Idyllwild is one of the things I really miss about living in California.
Well, I don't think being a photographer is just touching button, but in this case... the monkey did just touched a button and took a significantly nice "photography" right? What else did the human do beside giving the camera to the monkey? Did he edit the colors or something? I really don't know that's why I'm asking...
@@xcrav1261 Simplest answer. A professional photographer isn't just leaving the camera on auto mode. He would have needed to manually adjust a lot of different settings to create the best picture possible. If the monkey pressed the button on an auto mode camera it would have been a very different (much worse) picture quality.
I am a complete lay on anything about this. But I want to ask: If I set up a camera in the crib of a some-one elses' toddler child, and the child plays with it and so creates a selfie. Who owns the copyright to that selfie? Second question: If two painters paint a painting together, who owns the copyright.
@@nielskorpel8860 I can answer the second question. If two artists collaborate on a single work, barring any contracts or arrangements beforehand, they would both be considered joint owners of the copyright, with equal rights to the use of it.
@@nielskorpel8860 I would think different courts would rule differently regarding the baby. State and local laws and prior copyright cases would all be referenced. If none of those offer an obvious determination, then I'd think, like the macaque discussion above, it may depend on how much manipulation of the camera was possible or happened. Only triggering the camera button is little different from a deer straying in front of a motion sensor on a hunter's camera, despite perceived intent. Aiming, affecting the exposure in any way, arranging the background intentionally, all begin to creep into artistry and lean towards responsibility for the shot. Even if responsibility for the act does legally side with the child or animal, I think then capability comes into play. The guardian or owner of the responsible party might be entitled or required to hold copyright and benefits thereof on behalf of said party which can't legally enter into a contract due to minor age or intelligence, or simply being non-human. Whether a trust account might be made or simply allow the guardian to make the important decisions would also be a question for the particular court. Yes, this is why everybody going to court over anything they want to contest needs a trustworthy lawyer. Even a monkey or baby taking a picture can turn into a legal mess FAST.
Great video! Ive always called my dog a human. Specifically a lawyer. He loves to prosecute strangers who approach us and prosecute me if he wants to play. I didnt even know not being played with was a crime.
Remember the time Brian on Family Guy ran over a dog and thought he had committed murder? The other characters had to explain that the punishment for killing a dog wasn't a big deal. They even pointed a gun a Brian and told him that nothing would happen if they shot him.
I remember a story about a cat who had money put in a trust with a nice stipend for the carers of said cat, dependent on a welfare check at a notary/lawyer office yearly. The cat was 10 when the owner died, and lived another 20 years at the time of the story. It somehow changed color twice and gender once but remained in perfect health.
@@Rattrap007 and unlike some of Bidens voters I believe that Stella is alive. If course if Stella can vote, my 4 cats have to vote as well. As at least one of them is a conservative I suspect people would object.
It would be great if there was an episode on *service animals*, service dogs in training, their handler's legal public access rights (including any limitations), the circumstances in which a disabled handler can temporarily lose those rights, the responsibility of businesses to respect those rights (and the potential consequences of failing to do so), and the potential consequences for individuals who misrepresent a pet (or even an ESA) as a service animal. It would be a great public service to have all that information summarized succinctly so that it can be referenced and linked in online discussions and for anyone who might need to brush up on all the applicable laws. If such a video existed, I would create a QR code link for it and print it on an information card that explains ADA and state laws to hand out to people at businesses if they were to try to deny my team our public access rights. P.S. If you're thinking" but those laws are so clear and there are already so many resources available for interested people, why should I bother?"... because tons of people and businesses remain ignorant of the laws and their responsibilities and this ignorance leads to harassment and denial of rights of disabled people as well as pressure to create additional laws (such as registries) that put additional barriers and burdens on disabled people to "fix" the problem of non-disabled people's ignorance of the laws (ADA, state, and local laws).
OBJECTION! There actually WAS a rule that said a dog can't play basketball. The intramural basketball rule book for that county at that time states that all players must be students at the school for which they play. The dog was not a student, therefore he cannot play.
IIRC they basically let PETA be/provide the monkey's lawyer while they figured out if the monkey could even bring such an action in the first place. That part was the only thing PETA cared about and thus the whole case. There's a video about it in more depth on this channel somewhere.
It wasn't just one lawsuit. They swamped the poor men with numerous lawsuits, some of which were meant to set precedent. It was all really meant to garner attention and get more people to donate money, so they can ruin more lives, of course.
On a (loosely) related not, the RSPCA (British animal rights organisation) are allowed to prosecute criminal cases when they relate to animal rights. Usually criminal cases can only be brought by the Public Prosecution Service, but it's convenient for them to let a charity pay for the costs of prosecuting the cases and it means that more cases are brought forward than otherwise would be.
My dog had a lawyer when some asshole called the cops after he walked way to close to my dog barking at him and my dog jumped on him. Before the cops got there he changed into a thick coat to make it looks like my dog scratched him all the way through it. Luckily one of my dad’s best friends is a lawyer and represented my dog for the low price of a bottle of wine and won.
Article 18, section 5, paragraph 0 of the Washington, states that in order to participate in an interscholastic athletic activity like basketball a student must be a regular member of the school, defined as "someone enrolled half time or more". So no. The dog can not, in fact, play basketball.
A family friend passed away and left her 3 yr old poodle with some type of skin issues to anyone who’d be able to take the needed care for him (medications and what not) anyways whoever ended up getting him got access to a bit less than 200k for any and all medical needs and stuff. That’s all it was able to be used for.
"... probably saved a ton by making those robo-calls with today's sponsor, Ting Mobile..." I guess this means Ting Mobile could be responsible for a ton of unwanted robo-calls?
During my medieval history class, at University, we briefly covered animal trials. (Basically, animals are treated as people under those trials, and punished accordingly.) And my professor said something along the lines of :"It might seem stupit, but maybe they where practice for lawyers. Who said lawyers couldn't have humour."
Yeah... As someone in telecoms those providers like the sponsor buy unused time. So same network but it's discounted because you get leftover capacity and if things ever get busy they prioritize their own customers. Cheaper but you also risk not being able to use your phone during peak times.
Hey why don't you pitch a live-action Harvey birdman? That would be awesome. Bring in Charlie day as your assistant he knows all about bird law! That would be epic
I'm surprised none of the courts in the Slater case judged that PETA didn't have standing to sue. If Naruto is a person, why can PETA sue on his behalf without his approval?
I used to live near idyllwild. Would go there for the local apples and hot cider they made fresh at a tourist trap, did some fishing and camping out there too.
I can honestly say, after voting conservative my whole life… I’m now a yellow dog conservative. After Trump….. I will vote for a golden retriever before I vote for another Republican.
I do find it very strange that they thought "Would rather have a politician that would do literally nothing rather than one who they believed would make things worse" was an insult. If I was given the chance to choose between an empty plate and a plate full of shit, I'm not gonna choose the shit just because something's on the plate.
I can foresee a day when an Artificial Intelligence unit will bring about test arguments in courts regarding the ability to establish copyright of creative works, right to own property, earn income (pay tax!), write an enforceable will or other contract,to hold rights of personhood and self-determination, perhaps even cast votes, or by extension, maybe run for office-! I believe since the US Supreme Court can grant the attribute of personhood to corporations, allowing them to enjoy the rights of ordinary people, it is just a matter of time before technology reaches a level of sophistication to enable a seemingly self-aware system to also deserve that designation and subsequent acknowledgement of legal standing.
Apparently, if the AI has a body then it gets human rights. If it doesn't, then it isn't considered a person but it _can_ still be considered an author and hold copyright. At least that's the Star Trek precedent.
This actually goes back a long way, the Roman emperor Caligula tried to make his horse Incitatus the consul (basically the roman equivalent of the president).
If I remember correctly, he did this mainly to belittle the senate; show them they're so useless, he can even make a horse their leader. On the other hand, Caligula was Caligula, so I guess we can never really know.
We can never really know just how mad Caligula was because the people who wrote Caligula's record in history were the Roman aristocracy. So if they hated their military dictator they might have slandered all his actions after his death.
In all likelihood he was being sarcastic. But on the other hand he did take a trip to the shores of the North Sea, collect a chest full of seashells, and then return to Rome claiming he conquered Neptune, so who knows.
Sgt Reckless was a horse in the US Marine Corps who was treated like a Sergeant. She could and did give orders to lower enlisted humans. Mostly for them to share their food with her.
This made me think of a case we had. It was a custody battle between ex husband and ex wife over their cat. I'm not sure the US has had these types of cases, but I wouldn't doubt it. It's probably gonna be more common now since so many people are choosing pets over children
When I was in college an iguana was elected dorm senator. The human opponent was awarded the seat by default but never recovered his self-respect.
I mean really though. Who could beat an iguana in an election? He has balls for staying in the race.
An iguana would probably make a better senator than a human, if I'm being honest.
"..for reasons that are known to them" is the most polite way I've ever heard to say "you fuckin know what you did"
it seems so wrong the court gave them an inheritance after this
@@tlgmc1908 except for it was determined she wasn’t mentally fit at the time of writing that version of the will-paranoia is associated with dementia and that statement could’ve very much been a response to an imagined slight
@@katla_phc I mean, who gives a shit? It's her money. Her life's work. Nobody should be entitled to it.
It's so irritating hearing from the "we know what's good for you" crowd trying to protect us idiots from our own apparent inability to make correct decisions.
Having a dog sit with the understanding that they'll receive a treat sounds like a contract to me.
Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = Contract
You could make the case that if the law recognises the ability of the animal to assent, then yes, it's a legally enforceable contract! 😁
You know interesting bit of trivia: "Yellow Dog" is actually a catch-all term for stray breeds that comes form the weird tendency for domesticated dogs to crossbreed into what's essentially a Dingo in wherever a large feral breeding population is established. There are a few that are recognized as breeds but mostly they're just a convergent development into a roughly medium-sized canine generalist with maybe a bit of drift from common local domesticated breeds.
Wikipedia speculates that this "yellow dog" refers to the Carolina Dog, a feral landrace breed indigenous to the Southeastern United States.
@@EebstertheGreat ,
Either way, it shows how this was an insult in the time and place.
Well, dingoes are awesome. Unfortunately, due to stray and feral dogs cross breeding with wild dingoes in Western Australia, dingoes have lost their status as a native animal, and are now being hunted. Thankfully, the last completely pure population of dingoes (on Fraser Island, Queensland, which is also the largest sand island in the world), is fully protected. The unfortunate part is that the island is also a popular tourist destination, and there have been run ins with the local dingo population.
But if you go to Fraser Island, that’s the risk you take.
It’s strange that dogs are descended from wolves, but most dogs tend to gravitate to a size smaller than the average wolf
@@jimmynyarlathotep6857 How is it strange? Being descended from an animal doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of that animal. If that was the case we'd all be smaller and have prehensile feet and a tail.
Queen of Mean was sentenced to 16 years in prison.
She served 19 months in jail and spent 2 months on house arrest.
"We aren't held accountable for our actions. Only the little people are held accountable for their actions."
Look at Trump. Loads of crimes. Including those he's already been found guilty of - Trump University, the Trump charity thefts. Penalty of fines, no jail time even suggested. If you can afford the accountants and lawyers, crime does pay.
If you have enough money to shovel into enough pockets, you can get away with anything. Including tax evasion (which, ironically, helps you have the money to shovel).
That's the way it's always been in all of human history and it's completely non-partisan. Trump put his immediate family into positions of power, Biden did the exact same thing in the Obama years and is doing it again, the Clinton Foundation was a thinly veiled money laundering scheme for bribes and even that prick "Affluenza" kid who killed a few people while driving drunk and then fled the country. History is full of examples and that's just some of the big recent ones.
The truth of the matter is that it most often does not matter what you crime you've committed,provided you've got an adequate legal defense to refute it.Its a sad,broken system.
@White wolf are you really arguing that committing the criminal act of fraud is not a crime
It comes up so often, I think the slogan of the channel should be 'LegalEagle: It Depends." LOL
Should Attorney Tom and Legal Eagle do a collab?
It depends
I feel like there's a missed sponsorship opportunity in there somewhere.
@@lyreparadox Aw man, I missed out making that reply by 6 minutes.
Y E S !
Which diaper brand should sponsor Legal Eagle? It Depends...
As a photojournalist at the time, I remember the monkey selfie copyright case being a big deal in the industry. Also your tiny floof of a dog is adorable. :3
Same in the art and graphic design communities. It caused a lot of… discussion.
On the other hand, “I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” (- AronRa)
A fellow apistevist. Nice to see I’m not alone in here.
If corporations are people, why do corporations care about them?
@@godlaydying They don't, they get dissolved when they are no longer profitable. I THINK we are not dissolving actual people. Can't be 100% sure.
@@Melesniannon, we could if we had a strong enough acid solution.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The Pet Trust is interesting, especially since my grandmother, who sadly passed away recently, only had a handshake agreement with her son, my dad, to take care of her cat Fluffy. She simply asked him to care for her and he agreed. Fluffy is thankfully adjusting well to her new home and owners.
I figure that's just about how most pet trusts are created, just with the money the owner set aside for food/vet expenses thrown into the deal. As he said, most pet trusts are completely uncontroversial.
When the pet trust is "my son Jeff has agreed to take care of my cat Fluffy," there's almost nothing to argue over. When it's "I place ten million dollars in trust to care for my cat Fluffy," that's when Aunt Sally tries to sue Jeff claiming that mom wanted HER to care for the ten million dollars-er I mean, care for Fluffy.
sorry for your loss
Sorry about your grandma. *hugs*
I think pet trust is for when you don't trust the humans. My sister knows she can send hers here if need be, since she would also be sending her son and we aren't mean enough to not accept his 2 pets, too.
@@eliscanfield3913 On the contrary, pet trusts probably happen most often when you *do* trust the human, because most people wouldn't leave their fur baby in the care of someone they didn't trust in the first place. The pet trust is just a formal (or informal, if established over a handshake agreement as most wills are) way to say that you're also giving the new owner of your pet some money out of a desire to help them out in their new role as a pet owner.
It's really worth it to remember that the case he mentioned in the video was mentioned specifically because it was a noteworthy outlier, *not* because it's the way pet trusts usually play out.
Remember: the laws never state you can't cross-examine the witness' pet parrot
Don't forget DL-6. *squawk*
and those little bastards are just mean enough to rat you out! You read where they had to separate the parrots at that zoo in England? They kept teaching each other curse words and were cussing at the guests.
Don't even need that, just subpoena Amazon for the Alexa recordings.
Goddammit,,, I can't escape that darn PARROT
I mean...if it's property, that would be pretty absurd, right? What's next? Cross-examining your Chevy Malibu???
“The mayor would be proven correct because humans are stupid.” Ahhhhhh I wanna laugh and cry at the same time! Why is this so true tho!
Objection 4:48 : According to German law pets can not inherit property. They lack the legal capacity, just like in US law. You can determine someone how inherits the pet (and the money) under the condition that this someone takes could care of the pet (this has to be checked as well).
Correct. And from what I have read Lagerfeld stipulated that the money should go to the pets caretaker. So if I understand this correctly this like the pet trusts in US law.
This sounds like a reasonable way to treat cases like this.
'While [animal] does not hold to full rights provided to humans by the law, arrangements are in place for those case-classes where it makes sense to act as if they did'
You were faster.
"When Mayor Max crossed the rainbow bridge--"
If this lawyer gets more likeable they're going to bar him from practicing.
😹
Makes the rest look less scumbagy😜
"For reasons which are known to them" is an EXCEPTIONALLY powerful sentence in a legal statement.
Well, she was nice enough to not put them on blast😆
According to local legend, when Sunol, California was looking to incorporate, the state told them they'd need a mayor. So, the population looked at each other and said "Anybody wanna be mayor?"
Nobody answered for several seconds until somebody said: "My dog might be a good mayor." And that's how Bosco got elected in the first place.
True? I can't say. But it's plausible.
Correction: PAWSible.
Imagine waking up one day with death in your eyes, go to court to see what boring cases await you, and in the list you see "PeTA + Naruto vs Slater". And you thought this was going to be a boring day XD
and did Naruto explicitly employ PETA to act on his behalf? where's the signed contract that gives them authority to speak for him?
@@franl155
The Queen Of Mean Woman Legal Eagle 🦅 Mentioned Was Used To Make A Law And Order SVU Episode I Always Thought That Episode Was Inspired By A True Story Legal Eagle 🦅 Should Review It 🦅💩🍕🧐🤓😎😎?.
@@franl155 BELIEVE IT!
I dunno, I suspect a lot of judges would prefer a boring day to any case that involved PETA. It's the wrong kind of "interesting" case, I'd say.
@@MarsJenkar PETA is obnoxiously dumb, but so are many rulings. hehe
The fact that the Court officially ROASTED PETA for their HYPOCRISY is PRICELESS!!
Yeah, not surprising though. PETA has a fairly horrible record when it comes to animal abuse.
"It depends" reminds me of my tenure as a Building Inspector. That's the almost universal answer to questions relating to building a structure, methods, materials, size and height are all dependant on other factors.
PETA Has sucked so hard that anytime they get ripped to shreds is
priceless 😂
@White wolf It's what happens when you get an organization of fanatics. The actual issue/belief doesn't really matter. Religious fanatics? You get groups like ISIS and the Taliban. Animal rights? You get those who think all domesticated animals should be euthanized. Left wing politics? You get Stalin and Hitler. Libertarian politics? You get Rapture in Bioshock.
@@GrendalTheBeasty Fascism is a far right ideology, Communism is a far left ideology.
OBJECTION! MISLEADING!
"The Monkey Selfie" case was actually first brought forward in Wikimedia v. David Slater back in 2011 when Wikimedia hosted the selfie image and took the official stance that it was actually public domain. The case went on for a LONG time and the statement and clarification issued by the US Copyright Office in 2014 was in direct response to the Wikimedia v. David Slater case. And then all the legal experts weighing in on David Slater's claim to authorship was all in response to the Wikimedia v. David Slater case. The Naruto et al (represented by PETA) v. David Slater case wasn't brought up until 2015, after the US Copyright Office had already made the clarification and after the copyright of the Monkey Selfie had already been called into question with David Slater already losing his claim. Though David Slater still tried to claim authorship. All in all, people were already abuzz on the issue and David Slater had already lost A LOT of money long before PETA came in trying to argue that in fact the monkey should own the copyright.
he saw another way to bash PETA and he went for it. As he should
It all seems dumb. Monkey or not, if you take a picture with someone else's property, the photo should belong to the owner of the equipment, unless specified otherwise. Otherwise, someone can steal your camera and take pictures with it and have the right to them.
@@jenat82, that reasoning has some pretty severe limits. A host of examples, including spycam and revenge porn publishers come to mind. These folks shouldn't be able to profit without the permission of the subjects in the recording, regardless of who owns the recording equipment. Similarly, photographing my painting shouldn't convert my IP to yours, simply because you used your own camera.
@@波紋小石 well paintings already have that copyright protection, and in the U.S. 42 of the 50 states and Washington D.C. have declared revenge porn straight up illegal, so that's outside of copyright law.
@@kannonball5789 Thanks for the legal ed. That looks like good news for painters and recorded ex's, unless you live in one of those 8 holdout states. Why holdout? :(
I’m a little puzzled by, "outside of copyright law." In most areas of law (esp. civil/criminal), overlap helps. I got the impression copyright law could help at the screening stage. For example, "is this your IP? Prove the subjects consent."
I can imagine AI could pick up potential violators and screen them out. But maybe publishers would only do so if copyright law gave subjects rights to that IP. Your point gives me good reason to check.
Pets are definitely more people-like than companies, in every eye except the law's.
Animals have more empathy than a lot of humans, let alone companies.
Except companies are made up of actual persons with legal rights and cognizable interests.
@@donizekor2215
Yes, those persons have rights and interests. But a group of people is not a person unto itself. A group of people is just a group of people each with individual rights and interests.
I mean sure, let a group of people be a distinct legal entity because that's a useful concept, but that entity doesn't require human rights unto itself.
@@donizekor2215 i
A sleuth of bears? OK, now I want a new show about crime fighting bears, “CSI Jellystone.”
Law & Order: Sleuths of Jellystone.
a sleuth of bears vs. a murder of crows 😁.
and the grouchy, quirky, annoying lead detective should be a raven, because a group of ravens is called an unkindness.
@edingerc - but aren’t the bears of Jellystone the ones committing the crime? 🤔. Fairly sure there’d be far less pick-i-nick basket theft without them at the very least. 😜
But how cool would it be to watch actual bears play football?
@@bradstrew Well, they'd be hibernating for half the season...
Monkey takes a selfie, hoping for some bananas later.
Humans: let's go to court over it.
Now now. No need to go ape over this. 😁
Monkey: takes a viral selfie
PeTA: we want half that money
i'd bet a dollar that the monkey selfie camera owner who, in the end, claimed he had no money left to split with peta, had buried cash in his yard.
@@nonyabizness.original Unlikely. The bastards destroyed him financially for no reason. How much money do you think a photographer makes?
Edit: If he did, kudos to him. He deserved nothing of that shit. Each and everyone in PETA should get sued for owning a pet at some point in their lives, which by their definition is slavery. You know. To set an example. Who cares if they all have to file for bankrupcy? It's for a good cause.
@@JuMiKu Also I think we should definitely kill every of Peta's owned or protected dogs, cats, or even insects eating birds. All those are carnivors after all, "murderers" in their own twisted minds.
Sounds like the butler from Aristocats could've saved a lot of time and effort by just hiring a lawyer.
Nah, he was the old lady's employee not her next of kin; the only ways for him to get any her money or property upon her death would be for him to marry her (unlikely) or for her to make a will stating that she left stuff to him. If he tried to contest her leaving her capital and estate to the cats on the basis that cats can't own property, he might win the case but it wouldn't get him anything out of it.
"We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes"
Considering the tax breaks rich people get, yeah, sounds about right
Even she partially got away with it - the little people wouldn't get away with serving only 19 months for bragging about not paying taxes
What's hilarious,is that if NO ONE paid taxes,there's literally nothing that would happen.Youre not going to jail entire country.The fact we still pay taxes is because we are too afraid to stop.Its really funny like that.Its kind of like a group hallucination.
@@jeffdroog say good bye to roads...
@@jeffdroog Libertarians: "no no they're not taxes, I'm just asking you to pay me to live on the land I own and then I'll defend you with my army if you get attacked: it's a basic contract"
Also Libertarians: "Taxation is Theft!"
@@GuacJohnson if that were any more of a strawman it would be in a field scaring away crows.
Well, considering that I’m currently choking on wildfire smoke, a fire hydrant on every corner is a platform I could really get behind.
Yeah, I swear I remember watching something about a town that would only elect pets as their “mayor”. It’s basically just a ceremonial position, the human council actually runs stuff, and it’s a great fundraiser. I approve.
I remember a cat or dog as mayor in a town in Alaska?
Talkeetna. Current mayor is named Denali, succeeding Mayor Stubbs, who served for 20 years and survived an assassination attempt by a dog.
Meme Lawyer: "I am not a cat."
LegalEagle: I should become a cat model
LegalEagle is a furry confirmed
When you started talking about animals making art, it reminded me of the Star Trek: Voyager episode 'Author, Author.' In that episode, The Doctor, a Hologram, had created a holonovel that was distributed without his consent due to the publisher claiming that because The Doctor is not a person and so had no control over his artistic creation. This led to a hearing where ultimately the definition of "artist" was granted to The Doctor. It's a fairly similar concept to Measure Of A Man, since it had to do with if The Doctor was a person. It's not as lawyerly/courty as Measure of A Man though, so maybe that's why you haven't done a video on it, but it would be cool to see you react to it.
The Federation seems to be a post-money society, so the concept of compensation for authorial works seems moot. While there might be an argument for moral rights of the author, the right of distribution does not make any sense when the Doctor could never benefit from the copyright monopoly anyway.
This goes beyond whether he's a non-person with personhood rights, but rather whether copyright would even exist in a society where there is no ability to receive compensation for works.
@@BlakeMcCringleberry
So Trump in a "seems to be a post-money society" could steal every idea?
@@BlakeMcCringleberry It was a post money society until Picard got a 100 acre vineyard complete with immigrant servants :)
@@BlakeMcCringleberry You could argue that in a post scarcity society that money would be in the form of reputation or renown. So In that case the copyright holder could just steal the art from the "non existent person". Good episodes tho . Wish newer star trek had more of that.
@@criticalevent ixnay on the averyslay!
Based on requirements for political offices in the US, the highest office that a pet can achieve in the US is governor of Kansas, due to having no requirements in order to be a candidate for the position's election.
About a year and nobody's made a Toto joke for this? C'mon, UA-camrs. Here you go.
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore - you don't have jurisdiction."
Got to love American law for just having so many cases to look at for absurd, funny, or otherwise remarkable situations and results.
Sometimes the law is very serious. Consider the Ninth Circuit court's look into the authorship of the Urantia Book.
Confirmed: Legal Eagle is secretly a bird man and therefore a practitioner of bird law.
Even the joker doesn't tangle with the IRS.
I just watched that clip, it’s weird you mentioned it.
Lol. love that episode.
KING BARLOW...his face is on every one of these thousands
That was a long time ago. These days the Republicans and many Democrats have gutted the IRS so thoroughly that it can only afford to go after small individual tax evaders.
My husband always tells me that in the event of his death all his money is going to our cat and I get an allowance for taking care of him. He's so dumb. I don't need an incentive. I love that animal more than he does.
But do you love the cat more than your husband? That's the important question?
@@jss27560 I plead the 5th.
@@jss27560 The spouse always loses to the pet, that's the rule.
"There's nothing in the rule book that says a dog CAN'T play basketball!"
There’s also nothing in the rule book about not shooting the opposing team with a firearm.
There actually is. Pretty much every rule book for every sport is a list of things that are allowed, not prohibited. If a dog can't sign a contract, it can't play on a professional team of any sort. You'd have to get down to like 5-7 year olds for it to even be plausible for it to be allowed, and even then it is probably a no.
But a dog can't dribble the ball.
@@charlietuba but they can dribble on the ball
There is however a rule that says that only students of the school are allowed, and the dog was not a student and thus isn't allowed to play.
Anybody bring up The Tree That Owns Itself? It was a tree... that owned itself. And now its son owns itself, too.
I was thinking of this one the whole time. For those that don't know the story, a white oak in Athens, GA was willed the land that it grew on by the land's previous owner. While not an any way legally binding, the town just rolled with it. About a hundred years later, the tree had died and finally fell. The residents planted one of the tree's acorns in the plot, which in turn grew into a new tree and they declared that this new tree, being the direct offspring of the previous, would legally inherit the same small plot of land.
That is a fascinating story, thank you for sharing!
I love, love, love your not-so-subtle digs.
When i was a kid my mother got a sweet gig as the caretakers for 5 cats and a house for a deceased Dr. and his wife. Got to live rent and utility free for years!
Damn, I would love a job like that
"WHAT'S UP EVERYBODY?
I THINK DOGS SHOULD VOTE!"
The way some people voted in 2016and 2020 there could have been an improvement.
But should Jaa'm be able to vote is the question
They do
A friend of mine runs a dog rehab, she was left a GSD and 15k a year until the half million estate runs out with the proviso that she builds the dogs in her care a massive swimming pool.
Don't forget Stubbs the cat! He was the mayor of Talkeetna, an unincorporated town in Alaska from 1997 until his death in 2017.
Objection: cats aren't owned, they're owners.
Like my Grandpa says:
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
It's very important to find someone who you can trust that will take your animals in, should you pass before they do. As a bird owner, this is a difficult task.
I don’t know what type of birds you have or where you live but there are lots of bird sanctuaries that might accept them. When my daughter was a newborn, my cockatoo decided she needed to die. I talked about it in my bird Facebook group and found a lady that would adopt him. That’s almost 30 years ago and we lost touch but for around 15 years we’d talk and she’d send me pics.
A friend of mine has a similar problem: She breeds cats, but isn't the kind, who rehomes retired ones, so she has a lot of cats. She tried make me take on the responsibility several times. As much as I love animals, I have my own family and pets to care for. I won't take in a dozen cats no matter what and she needs to know that, so she looks for help elsewhere.
Especially for birds and the large creatures like horses, I'd imagine. I could easily handle a dog or cat, but birds take special care, don't they? A friend is the home of last resort for elderly and/or terminally ill birds, because her bird specialist vet can trust her to treat them well and give them as good a life as possible.
Yea. Birds and tortoises may not only outlive you, but your children. If you think birds are hard to find a home for, try a 100+ lb giant lant tortoise.
I used to work for a commercial real estate firm. One of the tenants in an office building we owned in D.C. was PETA. The building maintenance man told me one time "PETA may be kind to animals, but they sure aren't nice to humans." Lol
I read quite a few stories of how a pet owner lost custody of a perfectly healthy pet in a divorce to a partner that would immediately "euthanize"(using that term loosely) said pet immediately afterward out of spite. Are there now or will we ever see protections against such acts?
I wonder when the law in France was changed. The Disney movie The Aristcats was based on a story that a rich woman died and left her fortune to her cats.
PETA: those photos belong to the monkey
Also PETA: we’ll just “safeguard” the money for that money…
do you think peta genuinely thinks the monkey has an interest in copyright holding or do you think they wanted monkeys to have some sort of legally recognized personhood
@@prophetreasoning7817 I think it was a cash grab and nothing more
@@prophetreasoning7817 if the result turned out differently, and laws were passed in favour of PETA, there's going to be chaos for anyone who takes photos of their pets.
This whole lawsuit was overall very dumb, and I'd dare say it's borderline frivolous. Instead of suing a photographer out of his money for a phenomenon that may never happen again, why can't people just marvel at how interesting a thing a monkey taking its own picture is??
Although thisb law suit might have helped us a lot now in the world of AI art. As only art made by humans is copyrightable it's very likely it would protect artists
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 How would any verdict in this case effect people who take photos of their pets??? Even if the judge decided that all non humans had the same rights as adult humans, it wouldn't effect people taking photos of their pets... You can take pictures of other people and own the rights to those photos.
So, I grew up in San Jacinto, California which is near Idyllwild. It's REALLY worth the visit if you're ever out that way. I recomend Candy Cupboard and Café Aroma. I live in Colorado now, and visiting Idyllwild is one of the things I really miss about living in California.
As a photographer, the monkey discussion was just frustrating to see how people think photography is to click a button.
Well, I don't think being a photographer is just touching button, but in this case... the monkey did just touched a button and took a significantly nice "photography" right? What else did the human do beside giving the camera to the monkey? Did he edit the colors or something? I really don't know that's why I'm asking...
@@xcrav1261 Simplest answer. A professional photographer isn't just leaving the camera on auto mode. He would have needed to manually adjust a lot of different settings to create the best picture possible.
If the monkey pressed the button on an auto mode camera it would have been a very different (much worse) picture quality.
I am a complete lay on anything about this. But I want to ask:
If I set up a camera in the crib of a some-one elses' toddler child, and the child plays with it and so creates a selfie. Who owns the copyright to that selfie?
Second question:
If two painters paint a painting together, who owns the copyright.
@@nielskorpel8860 I can answer the second question. If two artists collaborate on a single work, barring any contracts or arrangements beforehand, they would both be considered joint owners of the copyright, with equal rights to the use of it.
@@nielskorpel8860 I would think different courts would rule differently regarding the baby. State and local laws and prior copyright cases would all be referenced.
If none of those offer an obvious determination, then I'd think, like the macaque discussion above, it may depend on how much manipulation of the camera was possible or happened. Only triggering the camera button is little different from a deer straying in front of a motion sensor on a hunter's camera, despite perceived intent. Aiming, affecting the exposure in any way, arranging the background intentionally, all begin to creep into artistry and lean towards responsibility for the shot.
Even if responsibility for the act does legally side with the child or animal, I think then capability comes into play. The guardian or owner of the responsible party might be entitled or required to hold copyright and benefits thereof on behalf of said party which can't legally enter into a contract due to minor age or intelligence, or simply being non-human. Whether a trust account might be made or simply allow the guardian to make the important decisions would also be a question for the particular court.
Yes, this is why everybody going to court over anything they want to contest needs a trustworthy lawyer. Even a monkey or baby taking a picture can turn into a legal mess FAST.
0:38 "could a monkey own a copyright" 💀
"....could a monkey own a copyright?" Oh no. oh man. That made my morning lol
Great video! Ive always called my dog a human. Specifically a lawyer. He loves to prosecute strangers who approach us and prosecute me if he wants to play.
I didnt even know not being played with was a crime.
Imagine Disney's "Aristocats" if he just chilled cause the cats couldnt legally own any of it.
Remember the time Brian on Family Guy ran over a dog and thought he had committed murder? The other characters had to explain that the punishment for killing a dog wasn't a big deal. They even pointed a gun a Brian and told him that nothing would happen if they shot him.
Yes I Remembered That Episode Legal Eagle 🦅 I Should Review It🦅😎🤓🧐🍕💩💩?.
@@cadejust6777 Did you just puke emojis?
My little brother accidentally stepped on my other brothers birds head and the bird died. He thought he was a murderer and would be sent to hell. Lol
I remember a story about a cat who had money put in a trust with a nice stipend for the carers of said cat, dependent on a welfare check at a notary/lawyer office yearly.
The cat was 10 when the owner died, and lived another 20 years at the time of the story. It somehow changed color twice and gender once but remained in perfect health.
XD Awesome. They couldn't even be bothered to find a similar-looking cat?! That is next-level lazy.
@@JuMiKu the lawyers probably got their hourly rate for seeing the cat and didn't really care either.
Stella deserves the right to vote dammit
She is probably smarter than many voters.
@@Rattrap007 and unlike some of Bidens voters I believe that Stella is alive. If course if Stella can vote, my 4 cats have to vote as well. As at least one of them is a conservative I suspect people would object.
It would be great if there was an episode on *service animals*, service dogs in training, their handler's legal public access rights (including any limitations), the circumstances in which a disabled handler can temporarily lose those rights, the responsibility of businesses to respect those rights (and the potential consequences of failing to do so), and the potential consequences for individuals who misrepresent a pet (or even an ESA) as a service animal.
It would be a great public service to have all that information summarized succinctly so that it can be referenced and linked in online discussions and for anyone who might need to brush up on all the applicable laws.
If such a video existed, I would create a QR code link for it and print it on an information card that explains ADA and state laws to hand out to people at businesses if they were to try to deny my team our public access rights.
P.S. If you're thinking" but those laws are so clear and there are already so many resources available for interested people, why should I bother?"... because tons of people and businesses remain ignorant of the laws and their responsibilities and this ignorance leads to harassment and denial of rights of disabled people as well as pressure to create additional laws (such as registries) that put additional barriers and burdens on disabled people to "fix" the problem of non-disabled people's ignorance of the laws (ADA, state, and local laws).
OBJECTION! There actually WAS a rule that said a dog can't play basketball. The intramural basketball rule book for that county at that time states that all players must be students at the school for which they play. The dog was not a student, therefore he cannot play.
Thank you for this - my family dog passed away a week ago, age 13, and this brought a smile to my face.
Sorry for your loss and thank you for giving him/her a good home.
Objection: how did Peta even have standing to bring their "Monkey Selfie" lawsuit?
The courts felt like humoring them?
IIRC they basically let PETA be/provide the monkey's lawyer while they figured out if the monkey could even bring such an action in the first place. That part was the only thing PETA cared about and thus the whole case. There's a video about it in more depth on this channel somewhere.
It wasn't just one lawsuit. They swamped the poor men with numerous lawsuits, some of which were meant to set precedent. It was all really meant to garner attention and get more people to donate money, so they can ruin more lives, of course.
On a (loosely) related not, the RSPCA (British animal rights organisation) are allowed to prosecute criminal cases when they relate to animal rights. Usually criminal cases can only be brought by the Public Prosecution Service, but it's convenient for them to let a charity pay for the costs of prosecuting the cases and it means that more cases are brought forward than otherwise would be.
Mayor Stubbs from Talkeetna, Alaska: "20 years of office. Am I a joke to you?"
Listen we’ve all seen air bud and space jam, we all know pets and animals can legally play in sports. Of course.
If there's no rule that says a dog CAN'T play then it's down to case law
I mean, If they make the team they make the team, of course.
I'm too old to have watched either of those, but when I was a kid we had "Gus", a movie about a mule who played football.
So can I sue the Renaissance faire for not allowing me to joist while riding a donkey?
I swear those ad transitions are always amazing!!
Lmao the "blood thirsty killing machine" line got me good
All joking aside a live action Harvey Birdman starring the Legal Eagle himself would be pretty cool. Maybe a mini series.
“I am not a cat”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thanks for the reminder!
My dog had a lawyer when some asshole called the cops after he walked way to close to my dog barking at him and my dog jumped on him. Before the cops got there he changed into a thick coat to make it looks like my dog scratched him all the way through it. Luckily one of my dad’s best friends is a lawyer and represented my dog for the low price of a bottle of wine and won.
Ah yes, my favorite lawyer:
*Mr. Lee Galeagle*
Article 18, section 5, paragraph 0 of the Washington, states that in order to participate in an interscholastic athletic activity like basketball a student must be a regular member of the school, defined as "someone enrolled half time or more". So no. The dog can not, in fact, play basketball.
The Ninth Circuit's response to PETA was *chefs kiss* perfection!
A family friend passed away and left her 3 yr old poodle with some type of skin issues to anyone who’d be able to take the needed care for him (medications and what not) anyways whoever ended up getting him got access to a bit less than 200k for any and all medical needs and stuff. That’s all it was able to be used for.
"... probably saved a ton by making those robo-calls with today's sponsor, Ting Mobile..." I guess this means Ting Mobile could be responsible for a ton of unwanted robo-calls?
4:20 ... Subtle Eagle, super subtle. Well done
Because "It Depends" is such a common answer, you should get "Depends" (the adult diaper company) as a sponsor.
Someone give this person a marketing job.
Yeah😆 he wants his viewers to associate it depends with taking a dump in a diaper?🤣
@@joshuaanderson9938 well im sure he wants us covered regardless of the legal outcome
@@GuacJohnson 🤣
During my medieval history class, at University, we briefly covered animal trials. (Basically, animals are treated as people under those trials, and punished accordingly.)
And my professor said something along the lines of :"It might seem stupit, but maybe they where practice for lawyers. Who said lawyers couldn't have humour."
I always knew my dog was a secret agent.
That’s your cat.
The fact that you used the term "fur babies" without a flinch and showed a picture of you with yours is deeply satisfying.
"Has not run off to an island" - is there an official legal term for a suspiciously specific denial?
Yeah... As someone in telecoms those providers like the sponsor buy unused time.
So same network but it's discounted because you get leftover capacity and if things ever get busy they prioritize their own customers.
Cheaper but you also risk not being able to use your phone during peak times.
Hey why don't you pitch a live-action Harvey birdman? That would be awesome. Bring in Charlie day as your assistant he knows all about bird law! That would be epic
Dude, your segues into sponsor advertisements are so smooth.
Wow, that 9th circuit thing was devistating!
I'm surprised none of the courts in the Slater case judged that PETA didn't have standing to sue. If Naruto is a person, why can PETA sue on his behalf without his approval?
I live in Alaska. In Talkeetna their mayor is Stubbs the cat. He's been mayor for over 20 years until he passed away.
My maternal grandparents had a cabin in Idlewild. A week after they sold it burned to the ground.
A fun factoid: in the French translation of « The Love Bug », Herbie is named Choupette (pronounced “shoo-pet”)
@LegalEagle - if you make that "It Depends" 8 Ball, I will totally buy at least one for myself and one for each person in my office.
Objection ask Billi the cat of Billi speaks on youtube if she can understand you. Now she'll probably respond MAD! but at least she'll answer.
She's so sassy! I love her!
"So yeah I guess I'm saying if anyone needs a UA-cam bird model, give me a call." 10/10 casting, would totally watch Birdman played by DJ.
I used to live near idyllwild. Would go there for the local apples and hot cider they made fresh at a tourist trap, did some fishing and camping out there too.
I can honestly say, after voting conservative my whole life… I’m now a yellow dog conservative. After Trump….. I will vote for a golden retriever before I vote for another Republican.
Trump is yellow...
@@skz5k2 xd
@@skz5k2 Orange
I do find it very strange that they thought "Would rather have a politician that would do literally nothing rather than one who they believed would make things worse" was an insult.
If I was given the chance to choose between an empty plate and a plate full of shit, I'm not gonna choose the shit just because something's on the plate.
On behalf of golden retrievers everywhere, I thank you sir. I mean, look at me, I'm thrilled....
"What does it depend on?" Thats the accurate question.
This is the content we're here for.
0:25 Oh! Stella! Is she okay?
I can foresee a day when an Artificial Intelligence unit will bring about test arguments in courts regarding the ability to establish copyright of creative works, right to own property, earn income (pay tax!), write an enforceable will or other contract,to hold rights of personhood and self-determination, perhaps even cast votes, or by extension, maybe run for office-!
I believe since the US Supreme Court can grant the attribute of personhood to corporations, allowing them to enjoy the rights of ordinary people, it is just a matter of time before technology reaches a level of sophistication to enable a seemingly self-aware system to also deserve that designation and subsequent acknowledgement of legal standing.
They are already working on such a thing.
Apparently, if the AI has a body then it gets human rights. If it doesn't, then it isn't considered a person but it _can_ still be considered an author and hold copyright. At least that's the Star Trek precedent.
@ good to know! once again, Star Trek on the cutting edge of technological prognostication
I can't believe Narutos friend would abandon him like that 😢
This actually goes back a long way, the Roman emperor Caligula tried to make his horse Incitatus the consul (basically the roman equivalent of the president).
If I remember correctly, he did this mainly to belittle the senate; show them they're so useless, he can even make a horse their leader. On the other hand, Caligula was Caligula, so I guess we can never really know.
We can never really know just how mad Caligula was because the people who wrote Caligula's record in history were the Roman aristocracy. So if they hated their military dictator they might have slandered all his actions after his death.
In all likelihood he was being sarcastic. But on the other hand he did take a trip to the shores of the North Sea, collect a chest full of seashells, and then return to Rome claiming he conquered Neptune, so who knows.
Sgt Reckless was a horse in the US Marine Corps who was treated like a Sergeant. She could and did give orders to lower enlisted humans. Mostly for them to share their food with her.
So when they are legally people, can you sue them?
Well, you COULD... I don't think you'll get much though...
@0:38 Sick burn, dude. That's a lot of damage.
10:22 Wow, that court really wanted to make the most of their chance to dunk on PETA...
This made me think of a case we had. It was a custody battle between ex husband and ex wife over their cat. I'm not sure the US has had these types of cases, but I wouldn't doubt it. It's probably gonna be more common now since so many people are choosing pets over children