Can an animal own copyright? In 2015 PETA sued as a ‘next friend’ on behalf of a monkey (called Naruto) after the monkey had snapped a selfie with photographer David Slater in 2011.
Benjamin Wein – Celtie Williams – Hannah Kairuz – Laura Broker-Torwart
The legal issues of the case
Copyright is the right to originally produced materials such as music, text or creative works giving ownership to the author. Copyright rights are covered within the Australian Legal System under the Copyright Act 1988 (Cth). Although legislation gives ownership of an individual or groups work copyright does not necessarily protect ideas, concepts, styles or techniques.
The case of PETA v. Slater 2015, outlines the key legal issues of copyright and standing. The case was brought to the United States district court by the plaintiff Naruto (crested macaque monkey) who was represented by PETA and the defendant David John Slater. Slater was being accused of publishing a photograph taken by Naruto on Slater’s camera. As Slater published the images to his book, ‘Wildlife Personalities’, without Naruto’s permission the issue was around does Naruto have rights to copyright?
According to the case manuscript the court dismissed Naruto’s claims as the “panel held that the animal had constitutional standing but lacked statutory standing to claim copyright infringement of photographs”. This is because the Copyright Act of 1976 (US) does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits.
What were the arguments of the case?
PETA arguments:
- The photo was published without Naruto’s permission
- Slater had infringed on Naruto’s copyright by releasing ‘Wildlife Personalities’, a book that included the photo.
- The book was also published and shipped from San Francisco, and so, PETA adhered to Californian copyright legislation and filed the lawsuit there.
- Naruto is the author of his own work, and PETA was suing under the Next Friend clause as Naruto was unable to himself.
Slater’s Arguments
- Slater is a professional photographer, residing in the United Kingdom, who
- claims to be the author and copyright owner of the Monkey Selfies.
- Slater’s argument was that animals cannot own copyright
- Slater himself stated, “’Every photographer dreams of a photograph like this…‘If everybody gave me a pound for every time they used [the photograph], I’d probably have £40m in my pocket. The proceeds from these photographs should have me comfortable now, and I’m not.’”
- He himself wasn’t getting financial compensation from ALL the images that we’re not realised to the media (Like WikiMedia)
- Slater admits the proposition of PETA, writing in his book: “The recognition that animals have personality and should be granted rights to dignity and property would be a great thing.” Slater further writes that macaques such as Naruto are “intelligent, artistic and complex.”
- As well as Slater, on the defendant side was Blurb – a Delaware corporation and publishing company (principal location: San Francisco, California) who published the book by Slater, entitled “Wildlife Personalities” which is sold through interstate commerce (including Amazon.com) in the United States and elsewhere. The images created by Naruto appear throughout the Wildlife Book, including on its cover.
- Slater admits Naruto created the Monkey Selfies. For example, Slater makes all of the following admissions in the Wildlife Book published by Blurb, which uses one of the Monkey Selfies as the cover photograph:
Description of front cover: “Sulawesi crested black macaque smiles at itself whilst pressing the shutter button on a camera.”
Page 9: “A Sulawesi crested black macaque pulls one of several funny faces during its own photo shoot, seemingly aware of its own reflection in the lens. Despite the howling posture, the macaque was silent throughout, suggesting to me some form of fun and artistic experiment with its own appearance.”
Page 11: “Posing to take its own photograph, unworried by its own reflection, smiling. Surely a sign of self-awareness?“
Page 11: “[T]he shutter was pressed by the monkey.”
Page 11: “My experience of these monkeys [crested macaques] suggested that they were not just highly intelligent but were also aware of themselves. . . . It was only a matter of time before one pressed the shutter resulting in a photo of herself [sic]. She [sic] stared at herself with a new found appreciation, and made funny faces – in silence – just as we do when looking in a mirror. She [sic] also, importantly, made relaxed eye contact with herself [sic], even smiling….She [sic] was certainly excited at her [sic] own appearance and seemed to know it was herself [sic].” (Id.)
What was the outcome of the case
When PETA first tried to sue, the U.S copyright office specifically stated ‘a photograph taken by a monkey’ as something that cannot hold copyright; however, PETA pursued the case anyway.
During the initial 2016 hearing the court found that the money, in fact, could not own copyright; “Our court’s precedent requires us to conclude that the monkey’s claim has standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, we conclude that this monkey—and all animals, since they are not human—lacks statutory standing under the Copyright Act”
PETA appealed this decision and in 2017 Slater and PETA reached a settlement under which Slater agreed to donate 25% of revenue from the selfie that the monkey had taken to wildlife protection groups. However, the court did not agree to this settlement as it wanted a precedent to be set for cases like this in the future, thus the case continued.
The case went to trial for a final time in 2018 and on April 23 the court ruled in favour of Slater, establishing the precedent that only humans can file copyright lawsuits, not animals.
swoon 