Can a monkey own a selfie photo copyright? Apparently not

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals brought the case in September on behalf of the seven-year-old monkey Naruto against British photographer David Slater, who self-published the photo in a wildlife book.

David Slater was visiting Indonesia and photographing macaque monkeys when Naruto supposedly seized the camera and took a selfie. PETA argued that entitled Naruto to damages, because the monkey had taken the selfie with “purposeful and voluntary actions… unaided by Slater”.

In 2006, Republican Senator George Allen called a tracker for Democratic challenger James Webb a “macaca”.

Through the lawsuit, PETA sought a court order allowing the organization to represent the monkey.

The lawsuit also named Slater’s company, Wildlife Personalities, and San Francisco-based publishing company Blurb, which published a collection of Slater’s photos, including two of the selfie photos allegedly authored by Naruto, the cheeky-grinned macaque at the centre of the dispute. The primate somehow managed to click numerous self-images, popularly known as selfies in great detail. The photographs have now been widely shared on worldwide media outlets, such as Wikipedia, who insist that the photograph “falls into the public domain” because “copyright can not vest in non-human authors”, the Wikimedia Foundation’s transparent report reads. The U.S. Copyright Office says no one can, and a federal judge has now said it would be up to Congress to extend copyright privileges to animals.

Slater asked the federal court to dismiss the case on Wednesday, stating “Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law, at least not in the Ninth Circuit”.

So, it doesn’t seem like we’ll be seeing an influx of monkey (or for that matter, other animal) copyrights anytime soon.

In the case of one of the most enduring selfie photos ever taken, should the monkey get the money?

In his noting the judge mentioned the interpretation of the law.