«Animal copyright

Put a fiver in his bank should advertisers pay animals? Advertisers pay child actors to slurp up breakfast cereal; they pay musicians and composers for soundtrack; they pay sport stars to endorse energy drinks; they even - witness Bob Dole's endorsement of viagra - reward the occasional politician. So why should animals go unrecognised? After all, cheetahs help sell fast cars; tigers have posed for petrol companies; eagles appear on credit cards; and a whale cavorts on behalf of the pacific line insurance company.
Gregory Colbert, a canadian filmmaker whose extraordinary exhibition "Ashes and Snow" examines the relationship between humans and animals, is one of those who reckons animals are as entitled as humans to benefit from their "intellectual property". To try to ensure that our furry friends get their fair share, Mr. Colbert is setting an Animal Copyright Foundation. From January 1st next year the foundation hopes to "collect one percent of a media buy, including print, broadcast and internet, that uses animals". It will then distribute 99% of the money collected to conservation projects around the world. Given that Zenith Optimedia estimates next year's global advertising expenditure at $452 billion, the animal kingdom could theorectically become rich. But will it happen in practice? Mr Colbert is a persuasive man (he got rolex to bankroll "Ashes and Snow" - now in Santa Monica after Venice and New York - in its tour of the world). But what he is counting on is peer pressure in the corporate world and consumer support: an"animal copyright" symbol on an ad campaign, he says, "will serve as a constant reminder that when we take something from nature, we are obliged to pay it back." And if it looks cute enough, it might even persuade consumers to pluck a product of the shelves»
(in The Economist March 11th 2006).
.
O presente artigo, publicado no The Economist este mês, tem certo interesse no que diz respeito ao tema mensal do blite e do espaço Curtas, "Ética Animal". Infelizmente não tive tempo para traduzir o artigo, mas o seu conteúdo pode ser resumido no seguinte: um tal de Sr. Colbert teve a genial ideia de criar uma fundação cujo fim é proteger os direitos de autor dos animais (não-humanos), a Animal Copyright Foundation. Grande parte dos futuros fundos obtidos por essa associação reverteria a favor de programas de conservação já existentes. A intenção parece nobre, mas vejamos o que está suposto de um ponto de vista filosófico. Supõe-se que os animais tenham "propriedade intelectual". É claro que não são autores de coisa alguma e, como tal, defender que são sujeitos de direitos de autor é inconcebível. Ainda que a iniciativa possa ser louvável, não deve pretender servir-se de bases filosóficas ou éticas que não tem.
.
Cumprimentos!
.
Diogo S.