The monkey selfie copyright dispute refers to a series of legal battles that arose after a photograph of a Cebus capucinus (white‑faced capuchin monkey) was taken by the animal itself using a camera owned by wildlife photographer David J. Slater in 2011. The photograph, popularly known as the “monkey selfie,” became the subject of a copyright claim that tested the legal status of non‑human creators.
Background
- In 2011, while on a research trip to Indonesia’s Sulawesi Island, Slater left his Nikon DSLR camera unattended near a tree. The monkey, later named “Naruto,” grasped the camera, inadvertently pressed the shutter button, and captured a series of self‑portraits.
- The images were posted online by Slater, who argued that he was the author because he set up the circumstances and owned the equipment.
Legal Claims
-
PETA’s Litigation (U.S.)
- The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2015, asserting that the monkey was the author and thus the copyright holder.
- PETA sought a permanent injunction preventing Slater from licensing, publishing, or selling the photographs without a share of proceeds to the monkey, represented by the organization.
-
U.S. Court of Appeals Decision (2018)
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. copyright law does not recognize non‑human entities as authors. The court held that “the Copyright Act’s language—‘author’ … ‘original works of authorship’—refers to a natural person” and therefore the monkey could not own the copyright.
- Consequently, the photographs entered the public domain.
-
Settlement (2022)
- In 2022, Slater and PETA reached a settlement that granted PETA a license to use the photographs for its charitable purposes, while Slater retained the rights to license the images commercially.
International Proceedings
- Australia (2021) – The Federal Court of Australia ruled that the monkey could not be recognized as the author under Australian copyright law, aligning with the U.S. precedent.
- France (2022) – A French court ruled that the photos were in the public domain, citing the principle that copyright is limited to works created by a human author.
Impact and Significance
- The dispute clarified that, under current U.S., Australian, and French law, copyright protection is limited to natural persons and does not extend to animals or other non‑human entities.
- It prompted discussions within legal and academic circles about the adequacy of existing intellectual‑property frameworks in addressing emerging technologies (e.g., AI‑generated content) and non‑human creators.
- The case has been cited in subsequent legislative proposals and scholarly articles examining the intersection of animal rights, intellectual property, and digital media.
