No monkeying around: Court weighs if animal owns its selfies

July 12, 2017 by Linda Wang
Jeffrey Kerr, general counsel to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), speaks to reporters outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Attorneys for David Slater, a wildlife photographer whose camera was used by a monkey to snap selfies, asked a federal appeals court to end a lawsuit seeking to give the animal rights to the photos. PETA sought a court order in 2015 allowing it to administer all proceeds from the photos to benefit the monkey. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

A curious monkey with a toothy grin and a knack for pressing a camera button was back in the spotlight Wednesday as a federal appeals court heard arguments on whether an animal can hold a copyright to selfie photos.

A 45-minute hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco attracted crowds of law students and curious citizens who often burst into laughter. The federal judges also chuckled at times at the novelty of the case, which involves a monkey in another country that is unaware of the fuss.

Andrew Dhuey, attorney for British nature photographer David Slater, said "monkey see, monkey sue" is not good law under any federal act.

Naruto is a free-living crested macaque who snapped perfectly framed selfies in 2011 that would make even the Kardashians proud.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued Slater and the San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, which published a book called "Wildlife Personalities" that includes the monkey selfies, for copyright infringement. It sought a court order in 2015 allowing it to administer all proceeds from the photos taken in a wildlife reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia to benefit the monkey.

Slater says the British copyright for the photos obtained by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honored.

PETA attorney David Schwarz argued that Naruto was accustomed to cameras and took the selfies when he saw himself in the reflection of the lens.

A federal judge ruled against PETA and the monkey last year, saying he lacked the right to sue because there was no indication that Congress intended to extend copyright protection to animals.

Throughout Wednesday's hearing, Schwarz pushed back, arguing that the case came down to one simple fact: photographs can be copyrighted and Naruto is the author.

Attorney Andrew Dhuey, from left, representing photographer David Slater, attorney Angela Dunning, representing Blurb, a San Francisco-based self-publishing company, and Trevor Cooper, Legal Counsel at Blurb, speak to reporters outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Attorneys for Slater, a wildlife photographer whose camera was used by a monkey to snap selfies, asked a federal appeals court to end a lawsuit seeking to give the animal rights to the photos. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order in 2015 allowing it to administer all proceeds from the photos to benefit the monkey. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

"We have to look at the word 'authorship' in the broadest sense," he said.

The judges grilled him on why PETA has status to represent Naruto and said that "having genuine care for the animal" isn't enough to establish "next friend" relationship, which is required to represent the monkey in court.

The judges did not issue a ruling Wednesday.

Angela Dunning, an attorney for Blurb, wondered at the possibilities if they do not prevail.

"Where does it end? If a monkey can sue for copyright infringement, what else can a monkey do?" she said after the hearing.

PETA's general counsel Jeff Kerr said after the hearing that the group plans to use money from the photos to protect monkey habitats and help people study the monkeys.

"PETA is clearly representing Naruto's best interests," he said.

Dhuey said the legal antics were more of a publicity stunt by PETA than a lawsuit. He quipped after the hearing that Naruto made a tactical mistake by not appearing in court.

"It's like he doesn't even care," he said before walking away from cameras.

Explore further: Lawsuit filed in US on behalf of monkey who snapped selfies

Related Stories

Recommended for you

The astonishing efficiency of life

November 17, 2017

All life on earth performs computations – and all computations require energy. From single-celled amoeba to multicellular organisms like humans, one of the most basic biological computations common across life is translation: ...

Unexpected finding solves 40-year old cytoskeleton mystery

November 17, 2017

Scientists have been searching for it for decades: the enzyme that cuts the amino acid tyrosine off an important part of the cell's skeleton. Researchers of the Netherlands Cancer Institute have now identified this mystery ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

EmceeSquared
not rated yet Jul 13, 2017
What precedent is there for an animal to own anything, especially the product of its work? Even in the wild, even other primates don't act like they own any property except what's literally in their grasp, not tools, clothing or ornaments.

Most animals do have rights, like freedom from cruelty, but there is no indication that property rights are among them.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.