> What if it was a dolphin that took the picture? A dog? A reptile? A single-cell organism? The 'slippery slope' argument almost never works. Women got the vo

> What if it was a dolphin that took the picture? A dog? A reptile? A single-cell organism? The 'slippery slope' argument almost never works. Women got the vote and society didn't crumble, au contraire. Dolpins can get some rights now reserved only for humans (e.g. better habitats in which their babies don't die abnormally often), without that same right being extended to reptiles. > Are we saying the more "personable" animals should be extended some human-like copyright rights because we can relate to them in some manner? It's a choice. A general principle of awarding these higher-sentience animals some limited form of personhood could improve their circumstances. Perfect is the enemy of the good. > I do not think this is by any means a common enough problem [...] I agree completely.