Naruto & PETA vs. Slater: The Legal Battle Over the Monkey Selfie

 



Naruto, a macaque, took this self-portrait in 2011 with a camera owned by photographer David Slater.

In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater ventured into the lush jungles of Indonesia to photograph crested black macaques. During his trip, one curious monkey named Naruto got hold of Slater’s camera and snapped a series of selfies, images that would later go viral on the internet. However, what started as a quirky moment in wildlife photography turned into a landmark legal case involving animal rights, copyright law, and the question of whether animals can own intellectual property.

In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto against Slater, claiming that the monkey, not the photographer, was the rightful owner of the now-famous selfie. PETA argued that since Naruto physically pressed the shutter button, he should be recognized as the author of the photograph under U.S. copyright law. This bold move by PETA sparked international debate about animal rights and whether non-human beings could possess legal rights over creative works.

Slater, on the other hand, maintained that he was the true creator of the image because he set up the equipment, adjusted the settings, and initiated the photographic process. He also argued that the photo had been used without his permission on various websites, costing him potential revenue.

The case, Naruto v. Slater, made its way through the U.S. court system and reached a pivotal decision in 2016 when a federal judge ruled that animals do not have the legal standing to hold copyrights. Citing the U.S. Copyright Office’s Compendium II, which explicitly states that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection, the court dismissed PETA’s claim.

Despite this legal loss, the case was eventually settled out of court in 2017. As part of the agreement, Slater agreed to donate 25% of future revenue from the photo to charities dedicated to protecting the macaque’s natural habitat.

While the ruling reinforced the human-centric nature of copyright law, the Naruto v. Slater case brought global attention to animal rights and the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in creative contexts. It remains a significant example of how modern technology and legal frameworks struggle to address new and unconventional scenarios involving non-human actors.


Sources:

The Guardian – Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'

BBC News – Monkey selfie is mine, UK photographer argues


Personal Note:

It is truly mind-boggling how this became an actual court case and caused a series of disputes, spanning over 9 years! Who would have thought that a seemingly innocent accidental selfie would land Slater in such hot water? I vaguely remember seeing this photo making waves on Facebook, but my first thought in witnessing the adorable photograph would have never gone to, "Huh, technically the monkey owns the photo, and now this photographer is taking credit for it." This case definitely provided some food for thought about how far we can take law.


-Vanessa Mok-


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Syamsul Yusof win appeal in "Aku Bohsia" copyright suit

Image
Image sources: New Straits Times Sources: Malayan Law Journal , MalayMail (1) , MalayMail (2) and Linkedin  On November 24, 2014, Elias Idris, a writer of the novel Aku Bohsia, claimed that the movie Bohsia: Jangan Pilih Jalan Hitam directed by Syamsul Yusof had many similarities with his story and had copied his work. Elias filed a copyright lawsuit against Yusof Md Aslam (the producer), Syamsul Yusof (actor-director), and Skop Production (film production). He claimed the movie, released in 2009, shared similar plot, character, and message with his novel published in 1995.  However, the defendants, Yusof, Syamsul, and Skop Production are argued they had never seen or read the novel. They said any similarities were just coincidence, as the issue of "bohsia" is a common social problem. They also filed a countersuit against Elias over defamatory articles posted on his blog on November 7 and 16, 2014. The High Court ruled in favour of the defendants and ordered Elias to pay RM1...
Read more

Taylor Swift’s Re-Recordings: A Lesson in Copyright and Control

Image
PICTURES BY JOHN SHEARER / GETTY IMAGES Source: Harvard Law Today Most of us have heard the name Taylor Swift, whether you’re a fan or not it is no debate that she is one of the biggest pop stars known globally. However, did you know that she is involved in a very interesting copyright-related issue specifically in the topic of intellectual property?  On April 9 2021, Taylor Swift released her first re-recording of one of her old albums titled Fearless (Taylor’s Version). On the surface, people might wonder what is the reason for the release if the former version was already a successful money maker, well first let’s look at how it all started. Taylor Swift was originally signed to a record label named Big Machine since debut, she then recorded 6 albums total all of them being multi million sellers. In 2018 she left the company but afterwards Big Machine was bought by Scooter Braun. He then sold the company including Taylor’s albums that was owned by them to another company named ...
Read more

The Great Batik Fraud: Beware of False Heritage When It Enters the Market!

Image
Image by Dewan Budaya Source: New Straits Times The threat to Malaysia's rich batik legacy comes from imitated more than a lack of appreciation. According to a recent report, fake batik is increasing in local marketplaces, particularly from overseas vendors who pass off mass-produced patterns as "authentic Malaysian batik." This is a smack in the face to local craftspeople and a violation of intellectual property, in addition to being a cultural insult. The New Straits Times claims that these knockoff goods, which are frequently imported from China and Indonesia, are sold as authentic Malaysian batik, misleading customers and diminishing the value of genuine craftsmanship. In contrast to batik that is hand-drawn or block-printed, which requires traditional artistry and skills, many of these products are digitally printed fabrics that have nothing to do with Malaysia's cultural heritage. Despite undercutting legitimate makers, they are used at government and corporate...
Read more