Monkey selfie copyright dispute: Difference between revisions

Between 2011 and 2018, a series of disputes took place about the [[copyright]] status of [[selfie]]s taken by [[Celebes crested macaque]]s using equipment belonging to the British [[wildlife photography|wildlife photographer]] David J. Slater. The disputes involved [[Wikimedia Commons]] and the blog ''[[Techdirt]]'', which have [[Image hosting service|hosted]] the images following their publication in newspapers in July 2011 over Slater's objections that he holds the copyright, and [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA), who have argued that the copyright should be assigned to the macaque.

Slater stated in August 2014 that, as a result of the pictures being available on Wikipedia, he had lost at least £10,000 ({{GBPInflation|UK|10000|2014|roundfmt=-3eq|aboutcursign=yes£}}) in income and his business as a wildlife photographer was being harmed.<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014" /> In December 2014, the [[United States Copyright Office]] stated that [[animal-made art|works created by a non-human]], such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable.<ref>U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021). [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf]</ref> A number ofSeveral legal experts in the US and UK have argued that Slater's role in the photographic process maywould have been sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, though this decision would have to be made by a court.<ref name="PolicyReview" /><ref name="El Reg, Cracking" /><ref name="Apollo" />

In a separate dispute, PETA tried to use the monkey selfies to establish a legal precedent that animals should be declared copyright holders. Slater had published a book containing the photographs through the self-publishing company [[Blurb, Inc.]] In September 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb, requesting that the copyright be assigned to the macaque and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the endangered species' benefit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf|title=NARUTO, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., and ANTJE ENGELHARDT, Ph.D. Plaintiff, vs. DAVID JOHN SLATER, an individual, BLURB, INC., a Delaware corporation, and WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD., a United Kingdom private limited company, Defendants.|date=21 September 2015|publisher=People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|access-date=14 November 2017|archive-date=15 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115000049/http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In dismissing PETA's case, a federal district court ruled that a monkey cannot own copyright under US law.<ref name="AT-20160106">{{Cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/judge-says-monkey-cannot-own-copyright-to-famous-selfies/ |title=Judge says monkey cannot own copyright to famous selfies |date=2016-01-07 |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Ars Technica |last=Kravets |first=David |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160109005741/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/judge-says-monkey-cannot-own-copyright-to-famous-selfies/ |archive-date=2016-01-09 |language=en}}</ref> PETA appealed. In September 2017, PETA and Slater agreed to a settlement in which Slater would donate a portion of future revenues on the photographs to wildlife organizations. However, the court of appeals declined to dismiss the appeal and declined to vacate the lower court judgment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wittenhorst |first1=Tilman |title=Streit über Affen-Selfie geht weiter: Vergleich hinfällig, Urteil angekündigt |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Streit-um-Affen-Selfie-geht-weiter-Vergleich-hinfaellig-Urteil-angekuendigt-4024493.html |website=Heise online |date=15 April 2018 |language=de}}</ref> In April 2018, the appeals court ruled against PETA in its judgement that animals cannot legally hold copyrights and expressed concern that PETA's motivations had been to promote their own interests rather than to protect the legal rights of the monkeys.<ref name = "888 F.3d 418">''Naruto v. Slater'', 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).</ref>

On 9 July 2011, an editor on [[Wikimedia Commons]], a site that only accepts media available under a [[free content license]] or in the [[public domain]], uploaded the selfie photographs from ''The Daily Mail''.<ref name="newsweek wmf"/> The uploader assertedclaimed that the photographs were in the public domain as "the work of a non-human animal", adding that "it has no human author in whom copyright is vested".<ref name=Wikipedia_9_Jul_2011>{{cite web|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg#filehistory|title=Macaca nigra self-portrait|work=Wikimedia Commons|date=9 July 2017|access-date=4 November 2017}}</ref> Slater discovered this a few days later and requested that the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] remove the photos. Initially, an administrator at Commons removed the images, but they were later restored after a community discussion on their copyright nature. Slater continued to challenge the foundation to remove the image.<ref name="newsweek wmf"/> The foundation reviewed the situation, but made the determination that the images were in the public domain and denied Slater's request; in its transparency report for August 2014, the foundation stated "copyright cannot vest in non-human authors" and "when a work's copyright cannot vest in a human, it falls into the public domain".<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014"/><ref name="newsweek wmf"/><ref name="ITV"/><ref name="bbc-reject">{{cite news| url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28672121| title = Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links| date = 6 August 2014| access-date = 8 August 2014| publisher = BBC News}}</ref>

|ArgueDate=July 12 July

|DecideDate=April 23 April

|Judges=[[William Orrick III|William Horsley Orrick]], [[N. Randy Smith|Norman Randy Smith]], [[Carlos Bea|Carlos Tiburcio Bea]], [[Eduardo C. Robreno]]

During a hearing in January 2016, US District Judge [[William Orrick III]] said that the [[Copyright law of the United States#Copyright limitations, exceptions, and defenses|copyright law]] does not extend its protection to animals.<ref name="AT-20160106" /><ref name=USN20160106>[https://www.usnews.com/news/offbeat/articles/2016-01-06/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos], ''[[Associated Press]]'', 7 January 2016.</ref> Orrick dismissed the case on 28 January, ruling that "if Congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Iovino |first1=Nicholas |title=Judge Dismisses PETA's 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit |url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/judge-dismisses-petas-monkey-selfie-lawsuit.htm |access-date=30 January 2016 |agency=Courthouse Naws Service |date=29 January 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131082259/http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/judge-dismisses-petas-monkey-selfie-lawsuit.htm |archive-date=31 January 2016 }}</ref><ref>''Naruto, et al. v. Slater, et al.,'' no. 15-CV-04324 (N.D. Cal. 28 January 2016)([http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/monkey%20selfie.pdf Order Granting Motions To Dismiss]). Retrieved 30 January 2016.</ref> On 20 March 2016, PETA filed a notice of appeal to the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Papenfuss |first1=Mary |title=Captivating monkey Naruto who snapped viral selfies filing appeal for right to photos |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/captivating-monkey-naruto-who-snapped-viral-selfies-filing-appeal-right-photos-1550654 |access-date=21 March 2016 |work=International Business Times |date=21 March 2016}}</ref> On 12 July 2017, the court held an oral argument on the matter in San Francisco.<ref>{{cite web |title=Oral Argument Notice – James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – 2017-07-12 |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?caseno=16-15469 |website=www.ca9.uscourts.gov |access-date=22 May 2017}}</ref> On 4 August 2017, lawyers for all parties to the case informed the court that they expected to arrive at an out-of-court settlement in the near future, asking the court not to issue a ruling.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/monkey-selfie-animal-rights-brouhaha-devolves-into-a-settlement/|title=Monkey selfie animal rights brouhaha devolves into a settlement|date=5 August 2017}}</ref> The court on 11 August stayed the appeal to 8 September.<ref>''Naruto v. Slater,'' no. 16-15469, 9th Cir., Order (11 August 2017), retrieved from [https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov PACER], 4 September 2017</ref> An agreement between Slater, Blurb, and PETA was reached on 11 September 2017, in which Slater will donate 25 per cent of any future revenues from the monkey selfies to charities that protect the wildlife of monkeys like Naruto, but the court has not accepted this agreement as being a valid settlement.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/11/monkey-selfie-rights-battle-ends-with-settlement/ | title = Monkey selfie copyright battle ends with a settlement | first = Jon | last = Fingas | date = 11 September 2017 | access-date = 11 September 2017 | work = [[Engadget]] }}</ref> As part of their joint motion to dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment, the parties have asked for ''[[Vacated judgment|vacatur]]'', which would nullify the record in the lower court. The [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] filed an ''amicus'' brief on 13 September 2017, urging the court to deny ''vacatur''. The brief argues that since Naruto is not a party to the settlement, PETA does not have standing to move for ''vacatur''.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Sophie|last1=Duffy|first2=Dori Ann|last2=Hanswirth|title=Monkey See, Monkey Do… Monkey Own? The Curious Case of Naruto v. Slater|url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5deafb41-a767-4319-bf93-cff2bc5d726a|website=lexology.com|access-date=22 September 2017|date=20 September 2017}}</ref>