This case analysis is written by Vashundhara Kashmira during her internship with Le Droit India.
Naruto, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., and Antje Engelhardt, Ph.D.
v.
David John Slater
Citation: 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018)
Procedural History: The lawsuit was first brought before the Northern District of California US District Court. A monkey cannot have standing to sue under the Copyright Act, the district court said, dismissing the lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then heard an appeal of the case.
Facts:
In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera was used by Naruto, a crested macaque, to take many self-portraits. Slater claimed copyright ownership of the photos when he published them in a book. Antje Engelhardt, Ph.D., and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued on Naruto’s behalf, claiming that Naruto was the photographer and thus the owner of the copyright.
The question at hand in this case was whether a non-human animal might be regarded as a “author” for the purposes of the Copyright Act and, as such, have the legal standing to file a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.
Conclusion:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling, concluding that a monkey lacks standing to file a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement as it is not a “author” under the Copyright Act.
Legal Reasoning:
The court reasoned that animals are not specifically permitted to bring copyright infringement lawsuits under the Copyright Act. The court further pointed out that works produced by non-human animals are not protected by copyright, as stated clearly in the U.S. Copyright Office’s Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
Rule of Law:
According to the ruling in this case, non-human animals are not “authors” under the Copyright Act and, as a result, are not entitled to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
Effect on Later Legal Developments:
By establishing that non-human animals are not entitled to copyrights, this case has had a major influence on later legal developments. This affects other legal fields where non-human animal rights are in question.
Concurring or Dissenting Opinions:
In this instance, there were no dissenting views. Judge N.R. Smith concurred with the majority’s ruling, although he chastised PETA for utilizing Naruto as a “pawn” to further its ideological objectives.
Analysis:
The ruling in Naruto v. Slater has made it clear that non-human animals are not covered by the Copyright Act. This affects other legal fields, such animal welfare law, when the rights of non-human animals are in question. Interesting queries concerning the definition of authorship and the intent of copyright law are also brought up by this case.
