Las mascotas se han convertido en un elemento básico de contenido y, a veces, en un generador de ingresos para sus dueños (y patrocinadores). La pregunta es: ¿tiene una mascota derechos en la legislación sobre redes sociales? ¿Puede beneficiarse económicamente? ¿Qué son los acuerdos entre mascotas? ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones para el Derecho de familia?
A pesar del amor de los británicos por las mascotas, éstas no tienen el mismo valor jurídico que una persona o una empresa. A ojos de la ley, los animales de compañía son objetos con el mismo valor jurídico que una silla, un teléfono móvil o unos zapatos: un objeto que se posee (y se explota en las redes sociales a capricho del propietario).
This seems oddly callous for a nation which is thought to love their pets more than (some of) their family members. There are laws against animal cruelty (Animal Welfare Act 2006), but animals do not have any rights in IP or Contract Law (which is the backbone of Social Media Law). Animals are not mentioned in the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and they lack the legal capacity to enter into contracts (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/monkey-selfie-case-animal-photo-copyright y https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/01/article_0007.html).
Derecho de las redes sociales
Under English Law, the owner of a pet has every right to use/exploit it. The social media account which shows a cute dog or cat would usually have been created by the owner and the IP of content will usually belong to the owner as well, especially if they are taking the picture or videos of their furry friends.
En los casos en que una mascota sea propiedad de una pareja, uno o ambos miembros de esa pareja tomarán las fotos y vídeos (el contenido) de la mascota y los editarán en consecuencia, y serán los propietarios de la propiedad intelectual de las fotos y vídeos. Además, serían los propietarios de la cuenta en las redes sociales que alberga/permite la explotación del contenido. Si una pareja se separara, el tribunal de familia tendría que decidir cómo gestionar estos activos (la mascota, la cuenta en las redes sociales y la propiedad intelectual).
Pet-nups
The recent rise of pet-related disputes in divorce y civil proceedings demonstrate the highly emotive and personal nature of pet ownership but also the sad possessive quality of the dispute (X v IY (Financial Remedies: Unmatched Contributions) [2018] EWHC 3053, [2019] 2 FLR 449); albeit this case doesn’t deal with a pet that can produce or is a producer of income for one or both members of the couple.
Clearly pets and pet related issues are matters which could and should be considered in pre-nuptial agreements or cohabitation agreements for couples. A “Pet-Nup” could also deal with the IP issues and social media ownership considered above; if the humans involved think that their pet has star quality.
Derecho de familia
Within the context of family or divorce proceedings, again pets do not have any special status as separate to other chattels meaning that family courts do not recognise any emotional attachments that parties may form with family pets.
The family court can order a transfer of ownership of a pet, the same way it would for property. This can include provisions for the maintenance of pets when calculating income needs of a party to include vet bills, vaccines, food costs, grooming costs and dog-walking bills can be ordered to be paid by one party to the party that retains the family pet.
Para unmarried couples, the court may award ‘ownership’ to the pet to the person who paid for it or under whose name it is registered with the vet. However, there will be no maintenance orders for a party to contribute to the costs of the pet, even if they have expensive tastes.
The court views financial matters and child arrangements as more important than pets and give priority to them, unfortunately disregarding the trauma and emotional impact that losing a beloved pet can have following a separation.
There are times where the custody/ownership of the pet can be a major issue. For example, if the parties jointly own a racehorse, racing greyhound or a dog that is on show at CRUFTS or even animals that are paid for their appearance in TV or film. If a pet is the key to the livelihood of a party, i.e. the pet generates an income for that owner will not want to take that income stream away from the reliant party. However if neither party is dependent on the income generated from the pet, the issue of ownership could become more difficult to resolve. For example, the parties may, as a hobby, attend CRUFTS, or pay a trainer to ensure that a horse or greyhound is in race condition. The court would need to make a fair judgment about the ownership of the pet in the context of the divorce as a whole.
A court will use Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to consider what a ‘fair’ settlement is and this includes the following;
(a) los ingresos, la capacidad de ganancia, los bienes y otros recursos financieros que cada una de las partes del matrimonio tiene o es probable que tenga en un futuro previsible, incluyendo en el caso de la capacidad de ganancia cualquier aumento de dicha capacidad que, en opinión del tribunal, sería razonable esperar que una de las partes del matrimonio tomara medidas para adquirir;
(b)las necesidades, obligaciones y responsabilidades económicas que cada una de las partes del matrimonio tiene o puede tener en un futuro previsible;
Como sugiere la redacción, también se tienen en cuenta las obligaciones y responsabilidades de las partes y no sólo los ingresos (o pérdidas) que genera la mascota.
Se trata de un ámbito del Derecho que sin duda generará continuas controversias a medida que sigamos interactuando con nuestras mascotas de nuevas formas y las tratemos más como miembros de la familia que como objetos.
Conclusión
There is a clear disconnect between our emotional connection to our pets and their treatment by the law. There is likely to be increasing pressure for the law to catch up and start treating pets with more compassion.
As things currently stand the recommendation must be to make sure that arrangements relating to pets are clear and in writing before disputes arise. If you require assistance with such agreements please contact Adam Bowes (a.bowes@rfblegal.co.uk) para cuestiones de Derecho de familia y Mansour Mansour (m.mansour@rfblegal.co.uk) para cuestiones de Derecho de los medios sociales.
Publicado el 21 de junio de 2022
Additional Info
Noticias Autor: Adam Bowes | Mansour Mansour
Adam Bowes
Socio familiar
