A macaque named Naruto pressed the shutter and took a grinning self-portrait. The photographer owned the camera but not the moment. Wikipedia said neither of them owned it. PETA said the monkey did. The resulting litigation asked a question copyright law had never had to answer.
What happened
In 2011, photographer David Slater left his camera on a tripod among a group of macaques in an Indonesian wildlife reserve. He was rewarded with a smiling mugshot of a monkey — later identified by PETA as Naruto, a six-year-old macaque from the reserve.
The image, among others, was destined for his book Wildlife Personalities. Caught up in the selfie craze, it became an instant hit — and was used by Wikipedia without his permission. When he objected, Wikipedia dismissed his claim of ownership on the ground that he had not pressed the shutter, and so was neither the creator nor the lawful owner.
The lawsuit
PETA then sued Slater, his company, and Blurb, the publisher of his book — seeking the court’s permission to represent the monkey and distribute the image, with proceeds used for the protection and wellbeing of the macaques at the sanctuary.
Slater and his lawyer sought dismissal on the basis that animals have no legal standing, and that the image therefore belonged to him. He had earlier maintained that the British copyright in his book should be recognised and honoured worldwide.
US District Judge William Orrick, in the Federal Court of San Francisco, held that he had no authority to extend copyright to animals, and passed the question along: this is an issue for Congress and the president. If they think animals should have the right of copyright, they’re free, I think, under the Constitution, to do that.
How it ended: the parties settled in 2017, with Slater agreeing to donate a share of future revenue from the images to charities protecting crested macaques. PETA nonetheless pursued the appeal, and in 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed that animals lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act — while criticising PETA for settling in a way that sought to avoid an adverse precedent.
The argument for the other side
This is a case that is both contemporary and universal. If IP rights were extended to animals, the whole framework would shift.
Consider whale songs recorded by marine biologists, paintings made by elephants, the architecture of a spider’s web. These are creations — and should the author not be the owner?
PETA’s position has a real logic to it: the photographer was earning from a creation that was not his. It is rather like the copyright in every photograph you take belonging to whoever owned the camera. The point is not paying royalties to an animal; it is giving the animal some benefit from the effort, and treating animals as living beings capable of holding rights rather than as someone’s property. Babies, after all, cannot rationalise or assert claims, yet they hold rights and those rights are enforced in courts.
If funding could be generated compulsorily and lawfully, it could drive far greater effort into conservation of biodiversity.
And against
There is a counterweight. Humans find a way to make money out of everything, and giving animals IP rights might result in their exploitation — creation manufactured for the revenue rather than protection funded by it.
Where it connects
The case turned out to be the opening argument in a much larger debate. The principle the courts applied — that copyright requires a human author — is the same one now determining whether AI-generated works can be registered, and it has held firm in that context too. Naruto’s case established the boundary; the machines arrived at it a few years later.
For India, the analysis would begin similarly: the Copyright Act contemplates an author who is a person, and rights that vest in and pass from persons. If animals were given IP rights with proceeds applied for their benefit, it could assist conservation of dwindling wildlife — but that would take legislation, not interpretation.
The takeaways
- Copyright requires a human author — courts will not extend it to animals.
- Owning the camera doesn’t make you the author — which is what Wikipedia argued.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2018 — animals lack standing under the Copyright Act.
- The same principle now governs AI-generated works.
Frequently asked questions
Can an animal own copyright? No — US courts held that animals lack standing to sue under the Copyright Act, and copyright law generally requires a human author.
Who owned the monkey selfie? The litigation settled in 2017 without resolving ownership, with the photographer agreeing to donate a share of revenue to macaque conservation charities.
Does owning the camera make you the author? Not by itself — authorship turns on who created the work, which is why Wikipedia disputed the photographer’s claim.
Does this affect AI-generated works? The same principle applies — the requirement of human authorship is what currently prevents registration of works with no human author.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- US Copyright Office