Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! Or, better yet, a monkey’s attorney. A professional photographer who handed his camera to a monkey to take a "selfie" is being sued by PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which claims that, since the monkey snapped the picture, the photographer doesn't own the picture - the monkey does.
British photographer David Slater says he had been following the monkeys for three days before setting up a camera on a tripod and giving the monkey (a macaque, named Naruto) the snap button.
PETA isn't monkeying around with their claim, they've taken it to Federal court:
Acting as Naruto’s “next friend” (or representative), PETA has filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court in San Francisco against the owner of the camera, photographer David J. Slater and his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., which both claim copyright ownership of the photos that Naruto indisputably took. Also named as a defendant is the San Francisco–based publishing company Blurb, Inc., which published a collection of Slater’s photographs, including two selfies taken by Naruto. The lawsuit seeks to have Naruto declared the “author” and owner of his photograph. Our argument is simple: U.S. copyright law doesn’t prohibit an animal from owning a copyright, and since Naruto took the photo, he owns the copyright, as any human would.
Why is this so important, and what does it all mean? If this lawsuit succeeds, it will be the first time that a nonhuman animal is declared the owner of property (the copyright of the “monkey selfie”), rather than being declared a piece of property himself or herself. It will also be the first time that a right is extended to a nonhuman animal beyond just the mere basic necessities of food, shelter, water, and veterinary care. In our view, it is high time.
Not surprisingly, PETA is also asking to control the funds generated from the sale of the selfies and to allocate them (without compensation) for the benefit of Naruto and his monkey friends.
According to the Associated Press, in 2014, the U.S. Copyright Office:
issued an updated compendium of its policies, including a section stipulating that it would register copyrights only for works produced by human beings. It specified that works produced by animals, whether a photo taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant, would not qualify.
However, Jeffrey Kerr, a lawyer with PETA, said the copyright office policy “is only an opinion,” and the U.S. Copyright Act itself does not contain language limiting copyrights to humans.
This suit brings up a few major legal issues. First, can a non-human species own something, or is ownership reserved for humans? Second, can a non-human species have standing to sue? If the answer is "yes," there are going to be a lot of lawyers making a lot of money.
Of course, that will lead to other questions. If animals can sue, what about trees? What about inanimate objects?
If Naruto wins this lawsuit, will we see the day where the Arbor Day Foundation sues a dog for using a tree as its bathroom? Or worse, will statues be allowed to sue pigeons? If you thought we had a litigious society before, just wait and see what happens if PETA wins this lawsuit in the name of a monkey who has no idea of the court proceedings.