Judge roasts PETA for being a half-hearted "friend" in monkey copyright case

PETA filed as a friend of a monkey "Naruto" claiming that Naruto owned the copyright to a photo. Then when PETA was losing the case PETA tried to settle. Typically its routine to accept such settlements. But the judge refused this time claiming among other thing that PETA was betraying its so-called friend by settling. (also its a waste of public resources to not create a precedent)

We feel compelled to note that … PETA appears to have failed to live up to the title of "friend." After seeing the proverbial writing on the wall at oral argument, PETA and Appellees filed a motion asking this court to dismiss Naruto's appeal and to vacate the district court's adverse judgment, representing that PETA's claims against Slater had been settled. It remains unclear what claims PETA purported to be "settling," since the court was under the impression this lawsuit was about Naruto's claims …

Now, in the wake of PETA's proposed dismissal, Naruto is left without an advocate, his supposed "friend" having abandoned Naruto's substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA's institutional interests. Were he capable of recognizing this abandonment, we wonder whether Naruto might initiate an action for breach of confidential relationship against his (former) next friend, PETA, for its failure to pursue his interests before its own.