PETA have once again found themselves dictating animal-related photo laws and regulations after their intervention with Shutterstock has led to the agency banning all “unnatural” ape and monkey pictures.
Shutterstock, the world’s largest subscription-based agency for stock images, now forbids any images of apes of monkeys photographed in an environment outside of their natural habitat.
PETA had recently penned a letter to Shutterstock, arguing that undue stress is caused to the animals whenever they’re used for photoshoots. They claim taking photos in an unnatural setting “does harm to conservation efforts, while boosting illegal wildlife trade.”
The animal rights organization added the facial expression that we interpret to be a grin, is in actual fact a “fear grimace,” indicating the animals are in distress. PETA said:
Great apes used in these images are typically torn away from their mothers shortly after birth, causing lifelong psychological trauma to both mother and infant. When they reach adolescence, trainers often discard them in substandard facilities where they may be kept alone in small cages for decades [...] By banning unnatural images of exploited ape and monkey ‘actors,’ Shutterstock has made a huge difference for nonhuman primates, both those in the wild and those suffering in captivity.
Falling in line with PETA’s request, Shutterstock has now placed a ban on any content in its database that includes apes or monkeys wearing clothes, demonstrating trained behavior, interacting with humans, or in any kind of environment they wouldn’t ordinarily find themselves in, such as photo studios. The block extends to images that are photoshopped or created through the use of green screen. On the contrary, photos inside zoos or natural habitats remain permitted.
Lead image by pixcarraldo via Pixabay.
[via Petapixel]
Only in their natural habitats and you have to take off their collars and leashes. If someone from PETA gets bitten, well... ;-)
I suppose that could depend on if you're saying they're unnatural as a result of their various forms or the processes resulting in them. The development of dogs and some cats (some cats are physiologically identical to other members of the species) is a natural reaction to the forces brought to bear on them. The fact those forces are intentional, rather than natural, as you seem to define it, is irrelevant. Furthermore, if, as many behaviorists believe, all actions are natural as a result of having been performed, aren't the actions of humans natural to them? Is the domestication of animals somehow less natural than modifications induced by behavior-altering parasites, for example? Assuming that to be the case, the actions which result in the formation of Canis lupus familiaris are no less natural than those responsible for any other subspecies of Canis lupus and Felis silvestris catus, relative to other members of Felis silvestris. This was the abridged version of my thoughts on the matter, in consideration of your time and assumed interest.
Or I could be full of shit! ;-)
I'm not referring to you, necessarily, but I think it's ironic that most atheists deny the existence of a being who guides the world from without but put man in that role.
You seem to be saying, man is not natural. I vehemently disagree with that definition. It is entirely illogical unless, as I stated, you think we are a race of gods. As for my use of the word "natural", I qualified it with "as you seem to define it".
I have no use for PETA, regardless of their stance on any issue. I love my dogs and will violently oppose any attempt to "free" or otherwise interfere with them.
Just to be clear, I don't really care about any of this. Despite innumerable failed attempts, I'm still determined to make you smile. :-)
Completely disagree with every bit of everything you wrote except, of course, about having psychic abilities.
Happy New Years!
You don't get to determine which definition is relevant.
I find it interesting, how often you start a sentence with, "You don't get to ..." and don't see the irony in always trying to set the terms and conditions of every discussion.
Were you an only child or the baby of the family? I was the youngest of six! Does it show? :-)
I guess I'm not nearly as mature as you. :-/
PETA agrees with you about that. They want dogs and cats euthanized instead of being kept in homes.
I think since humans have domesticated these animals and we have made them dependent on us, it is our responsibility to help them now. It is our fault they are domesticated so we now must be their stewards. And yes, I do this. I volunteer at the humane society and care for the unwanted animals that we've created.
Ah, but they are a sanity saver for some. They lower blood pressure in others. They help the blind to see. They help veterans heal. They bring joy to nursing home patients.
My border collie was a certified canine good citizen. She brought so much joy to nursing home patients when she visited. Humans can't be bothered with the elderly, but dogs sure love them unconditionally.
Not everything about keeping domestic animals is a bad thing.
There's NOTHING wrong with the practice. Of course a lot of people are irresponsible about it but it's, in fact, a wonderful thing for the reasons you mention and many more.
Bob was just dropped when he was a baby. And on the playground for running his mouth. And by several women while dating. And by his wife, every time he tells her, "You don't get to..." ;-)
and your resorting to threats of violence is a mature response?
He was teasing you, not insulting your wife. Have a good New Year's, Bob. I'm off to celebrate with my family and no longer want to be pulled into a debate with an Eristic.
Have a happy New Year, Donna!
Happy New Year, Sam.
Are you a wolf biologist or behavioralist? I don't think so. I work with wolf biologist and behavioralist.
Wolves are a cooperative species. Usually the pack does not kill its own members, although they will kill wolves from other packs. If a wolf is killed in its own pack, it is usually what we call an omega wolf. He or she is lowest in the social order and is always picked on. this is for survival as the Omega holds the pack back.
Scientists have believed for many years that dogs evolved from wolves, and most likely became domesticated when humans settled down and turned to agriculture. However, a study in early 2014 contradicts this belief with evidence that points to a common ancestor of dogs and wolves, and a domestication process that took place earlier than once thought.
As for dogs turning on their owners, the owner should learn to read animal behavior and signs. Dogs show the signs long before they attack. If a dog is aggressive, then proper training or euthanasia is the solution. Most dog aggression results because of the animal being raised as fighting dog or as a result of animal abuse.
In the case of joggers, runners, bikers, etc., it's because the motion of the person triggers their prey drive. However, not every dog will naturally decide to chase down and bite someone who's moving too quickly. Those dogs that do have learned to do it — again, because of human negligence.
You act like an expert at everything with all your comments, but you are far from an expert on all things. If you were, you'd be God. Sorry to break it to you, but you are not God, nor are you a variation of a god. You are not omniscient or omnipotent. Neither are scientists, but at least they admit when they were mistaken.
Without anyone still being alive when the first domestication happened, you aren't stating a fact. It could have been a symbiotic relationship. For all we know, dogs could have domesticated us.
If I open the door, my dogs will not leave. If I walk into another room, my dog (one is basically mine and the other, basically my wife's) will go with me. We often take them for hikes in remote areas, without leashes. They stay with us, go with us, stop with us, etc.
In fact, if you compare a dog to a person, their behavior is very similar. A feral child will run away, attack you if cornered, etc.. There is absolutely no way you can win this one but you can't lose either. I'm done.
I am favour of this. I cannot think of one good reason why any animal found only in Africa should find its way into a Zoo outside Africa. Migrating animals like wildebeest and elephants have long established annual routes in their natural environment regardless of the risks they face. For these animals, Zoo is a Prison.
"...photos inside zoos or natural habitats remain permitted."
Thanks, Sam, I was thinking long-term. First step to everything
To be honest, I'm torn on the issue of zoos. While I certainly agree with your position regarding the individual animals, the role of zoos in conservation seems to be inestimable. Life just sucks sometimes. :-/
Depends on the zoo. The zoo by me is heavily involved with conservation. The habitats are not cages, but replicas of the animals natural habitat. Additionally, they do not take in any animals except for ones that were 1) kept illegally as domestic pets and cannot be returned to the wild 2) injured and even though healed cannot function in the wild
I lost count the number of times, wild animals have escaped from the so-called conservation Zoo only to be killed later to protect humans. Which brings me to a particular zoo in Copenhagen.
Marius, a healthy male giraffe, was killed, or more to the point, died as a result of euthanasia on February 9, 2014. Visitors, including children, were invited to watch while the giraffe was dissected. How does this help conservation?
It doesn’t, but it’s not the zoo I’m talking about. Some zoos suck, others don’t. What that Copenhagen zoo did is irresponsible, but like it’s best not to judge all people because of the act of one, it’s best not to do the same with zoos. Life is not one extreme or another, despite the comments we see online. There is a large middle area where compromises can be reached and people are trying to do the right thing of fix what the extremes have destroyed.
If an exotic animal was kept by a drug dealer illegally as a pet, which has happened, the animal cannot be released back into the wild. So should we euthanize this animal, or find a conservation zoo to see to its needs for the rest of its life? Either way the animal doesn't win because of human negligence. I'd rather see it go to a zoo like the one by me where they see to its veterinary needs, provide food, and let it live out its life in relative comfort compared to being killed or kept chained to an abandoned building.
Full discloser: I volunteer for the humane society. I see the worst that human's are capable of doing to animals. At least rescues and conservation groups are trying to put it right and help the animals that other humans have wronged.
Yes, because going out and tromping their natural habitat getting pictures is so much better for conservation. Why did I not realize that?
Are you redefining "natural"? I thought the word excluded humans by definition!? :-)
So take your ball and go home! ;-)
You should know by now, my twin goals are truth (as I see it) and humor, the order of which varies depending on the subject.
I'm reminded of the parable of the Blind men and the Elephant. I'm sure you understand my point.
As for when to use humor, I only concern myself with when not to use it, which is different. I find there are very few situations when it's not called for but that's just me.
How, is subjective.
F Peta. Radical organization. Google them.
I despise PETA! However, in this instance, I think I agree with their stand on not stressing out the animals. I cringe every time they accomplish something because I think they are radicals and I don't agree with their ultimate goal of eradicating all animal domestication. Still, we need to treat our domestic animals better! The animals raised for food are treated as if they are not living things.
Depends on how liberal you want to be with your thoughts. It could be argued that if something is possible, then it was meant to be. Then of course there are arguments which are less extreme all the way back to some who argue that the only thing humans should do is remove themselves from existence. The "everywhere in between" is where all us rational folks live.
I’m a liberal and I think PETA should be disbanded. They are just embarrassing themselves at this point.
good i get my bike back.
Well, now I fear that what follows next is that I will not be able to photograph Asians anywhere except Asia, and African Americans may not be photographed anywhere other than Africa. Oh no! I just realized I have photographed African Cichlids in my aquarium! What a kurfuffle!
With absolutely NO respect, I would suggest PETA kiss my ass, get a life, and stop going out of their way to find "problems" where none exist.