The controversy over the copyright status of photographs taken by a crested macaque, commonly referred to as the “Monkey Selfie” case, has resurfaced with a suit filed by PETA on behalf of the macaque Naruto against photographer David John Slater. The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of authorship under both United States and Indian copyright law.<\/p>\n
English photographer David John Slater, while on a trip to an Indonesian national park, left his camera unattended. The camera was picked up by Naruto, a six-year-old crested macaque, who produced a series of photographs. Slater subsequently published a book containing the images for commercial use. A dispute over the copyright status of the photographs first arose when one image appeared on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia refused to remove the image on the basis that it considered the work to be in the public domain, a position it maintained after Slater sent a take-down notice. Slater lost the resulting suit.<\/p>\n
PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed suit on behalf of Naruto, asserting that the macaque was the true author of the selfies and that “Naruto should be afforded the protection of a claim of ownership, and the right to recover damages and other relief for copyright infringement.” PETA’s argument was that the photographs were the result of the “purposeful and voluntary actions” of Naruto, without any external supervision, and that the original work should therefore be owned by Naruto rather than by Slater.<\/p>\n
PETA further asserted that “under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 et seq.<\/em>, is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protections of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto.” PETA also contended that any proceeds from the sale, licensing, or other commercial use of the images should be applied for the benefit of Naruto, his family, his community, and the betterment of his habitat.<\/p>\n Under United States copyright law, the only requirement for a claim of ownership is that there be an author; in practice, however, that author must be a human being. Section 202.02(b) of the Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices states that “The term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.”<\/p>\n Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a photograph is the person who takes the photograph. The term “person” in Indian jurisprudence encompasses both legal and natural persons (the latter meaning human beings). Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines “person” to include “company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.”<\/p>\n Whilst certain animals \u2014 notably dolphins \u2014 have been acknowledged as “non-human persons” by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for the limited purpose of protecting them, that recognition does not extend the legal concept of personhood to the point of conferring intellectual property rights upon animals. Animals are treated as persons in certain limited contexts exclusively for their protection, not for the attribution of creative rights.<\/p>\n Both under United States law and under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, copyright authorship is confined to human or legally recognised persons. The macaque’s claim to ownership of the Monkey Selfies is unlikely to succeed under either jurisdiction’s existing legal framework absent legislative change.<\/p>\n This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Monkey Selfie case raises significant questions about authorship and copyright law in the context of animal-created works. Analysing both US and Indian statutes, the post concludes that animals are not entitled to copyright ownership under current law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":33,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[7482,93,917,7484,7481,12975,573],"class_list":["post-29870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-animal-rights","tag-copyright-law","tag-indian-copyright-act","tag-legal-authorship","tag-monkey-selfie","tag-naruto-copyright","tag-peta"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29870"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149910,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29870\/revisions\/149910"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The US Legal Position<\/h2>\n
The Indian Legal Position<\/h2>\n
Assessment<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer<\/h2>\n