Common sense has prevailed in a ‘landmark’ US copyright case involving British photographer, David Slater, and animal rights group, PETA, who sued the photographer on behalf of an Indonesian macaque.
That cheeky Naruto!
It took a few years, but we’ve finally got there – animals cannot own copyright in the US.
Here’s some background on the strangest copyright case in recent history: In 2011 Slater went to Sulawesi to photograph the Indonesian crested black macaque.
In his original account, he said that while enjoying the company of the black apes, one cheeky fella spontaneously snapped a selfie while pulling a grin.
The photos went viral. In 2014 the images became available on Wikimedia as a free public domain download.
Copyright law in Australia, the US and elsewhere state that the person who presses a camera shutter button owns the copyright to the picture. Based on Slater’s original account, the monkey pressed the shutter – therefore Wikimedia decided that no human person owns the copyright.
The exception to this rule is when a contract stipulates that an assistant may press a shutter button at the direction of a photographer – or something along those lines. The other exception is when triggers are used – if the photographer intended an animal to trigger the shutter, then they maintain the copyright.
Slater attempted to slightly revise his story to maintain copyright, arguing that he planned the photos all along. And this is when the weirdness really starts. He said the ape was behaving like an assistant – despite no contract or arrangement being agreed upon by either monkey or human. Additionally, Slater’s ‘effort, technical knowledge, and vision’ had been ignored.
The bitter photographer was probably exhausted and ready to let things quieten down. But the media attention caught the imagination of the folk at PETA, who sued him on behalf of the monkey – named Naruto in the court filings.
Over the next three years the case occasionally found its way back into the spotlight. Twice it was ruled that copyright cannot be assigned to animals, but PETA appealed the decision.
ProCounter last reported in August 2017 that PETA had copped a grilling from appeals court judges, and was ready to settle the absurd case. Slater and PETA reached an out of court settlement in September, with the photographer agreeing to donate 25 percent of profit from the photos to animal charities.
The courts denied the motion to dismiss the case, effectively arguing that precedent needs to be set to stop PETA from wasting everyone’s time in a similar fashion in future. The legal battle had to finish with a court ruling, which found that animals cannot own copyright.
If Slater had hung in there he probably would have won the case, and with luck would have had his astronomical legal bills paid by PETA.
It’s not really a victory for Slater or PETA, but definitely one for the lawyers. It took three years to answer a question no one really asked.
PETA may again appeal the decision, which would make the job more difficult for the movie script writers.
That’s right, Conde Nast Entertainment brought the rights to turn the story into a film.+