Macaque Monkey Selfie: Copyright Dispute Settled
Wikipedia Versus David Slater
Briton David Slater has been in dispute with Wikipedia over a photo they published on the Wikimedia website. Wikipedia claimed the image was in the public domain. David Slater disagreed with them and said he owned the copyright. He is a professional wildlife photographer and his main income is from selling photographs. The matter of who owns the copyright is thus of vital importance to him.
The photograph (shown above) is a close-up of a macaque monkey. The grinning smile in the portrait has become an iconic image. It has been shared millions of times via social media, but Mr. Slater has made no money from its popularity.
In 2011, David was on location in Indonesia filming macaques. The monkeys are an endangered species and he planned to use the photos to raise awareness of their plight. He spent several days with them in the forest, but the “big money shot” eluded him. In order to get that special picture, he set the camera with a distance release switch. He moved out of sight of the animals and they were able to approach the camera unafraid. The monkeys were fascinated by their reflection in the lens and put their faces really close to it. The camera trigger was pulled and some incredible images were captured.
Monkey Selfie Image Starts Copyright Row 2011
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works."
Definition of copyright from the website of the United States Copyright Office.
Can a Non-Human Take a Photo?
The legal fight rested on whether a selfie can only be taken by a human being or whether an animal can take one too. ‘Selfie’ is short for self-portrait. In a selfie, the person who takes the picture and the subject of the photo are one and the same and they hold the copyright. However, US copyright law refers only to the protection of artistic work created by people. Animals are not mentioned.
Wikipedia argued that even though the monkey could not claim copyright, neither could David Slater as he did not take the shot. The camera shutter was triggered by a macaque monkey and so the monkey was the photographer. Their stated view is that the image "is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.”
"The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws.
The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist.
Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it."
This definition of "public domain" is from Stanford University Libraries website.
PETA Gets Involved
The dispute about copyright has been progressing through the US Courts for the last 6 years. In 2015 the animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) joined in the fray on behalf of the macaque monkey.
They argued the selfie photos cannot be classified as being in the public domain as the copyright was owned by the macaque. David Slater published a book using the pictures. His book includes the unique macaque selfies as well as many other amazing wildlife photos and I recommend buying it. Wildlife Personalities
Royalties from the book are part of Slater's income and PETA argue against this. They say profits from the sale of the macaque’s self-portraits should be used to benefit the animal. The Courts have disagreed at both lower and appeal levels. Their final ruling (April 2018) has been against PETA.
PETA Sues Over Monkey Selfies
Monkey Photo Law Suit Reaches Federal Appeals Court
PETA presented their case in July 2017 to the US Federal Appeals Court.
David Slater’s attorney argued that “the monkey named Naruto couldn't hold a copyright because he cannot benefit financially from his work. The British copyright for the photos obtained by his company should be honored worldwide.”
However, without US copyright protection the photos were being freely copied and shared online.
PETA Claims They Are Naruto's Friend
At each stage of this process, the US lower Courts determined that David Slater did not own the intellectual copyright to the macaque’s selfie photos. Each Court ruled in favor of Wikipedia’s contention that the photos are public domain works and therefore freely available for anyone to use.
PETA claimed it was acting as a “friend” to the monkey known as Naruto and argued that any monies should be used to protect this critically endangered species.
David Slater argued that without his camera and equipment the monkeys could not have taken the photos. He insisted he owned the worldwide copyright as he set up the tripod and the monkeys only played with the camera for a few moments. He has lost income due to this dispute. Because of widespread copying of the image he has suffered consequential loss of royalties.
Federal Appeals Court Hears Copyright Case July 2017
Photographer Agrees 25% Cut For PETA
ABC News reported on 09/11/2017
"A lawsuit over who owns the copyright to selfie photographs snapped by a monkey has ended in a settlement before a federal court could answer the novel legal question.
Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photo agreed to donate 25 per cent of any future revenue of the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said."
Journalist Matthew Hughes suggested on TheNextWeb.com (12th September 2017) the photographer was bullied by PETA into accepting this revenue sharing arrangement. David Slater was said to be having difficulty finding enough money to pay his attorney’s bill. In contrast PETA receives millions of dollars in revenue each year to fight its cause.
Lawyers representing both David Slater and PETA asked the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case, but it would not.
PETA Names Naruto “Person of the Year”
You might think that having won 25% of the photograph’s ongoing royalties, PETA would be content. You would be wrong. They continued to needle David Slater by using other ways to champion the monkey’s rights over his.
In December 2017, they named Naruto, the infamous macaque photographer, as their Person of the Year. Previous recipients of the award include talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, former President Bill Clinton, and Pope Francis. PETA present the prize each year to someone who in their view has made an outstanding contribution to animal rights.
By giving the honor to a monkey instead of a human, PETA gained another round of publicity for the copyright issues raised by this case. You should make up your own mind whether adding a monkey to the list of prize winners enhances or diminishes the honor.
Final Decision By Appeals Court April 2018
The 9th Circuit Appeals Court in San Francisco, California has ruled animals cannot hold copyright under US law. This confirms the decisions made by the lower Courts. The macaque monkey photos are in the public domain and remain on the Wikimedia Commons website for reuse.
The Appeals Court was scathing about the involvement of PETA in the case. Far from being a friend to Naruto, the Court said PETA had used the dispute for their own advancement. They had reached a financial settlement with the photographer, but none of the money would directly benefit the monkey they claimed as their friend.