British wildlife photographer David Slater is perhaps best known not for the images he captured through his lens, but for a photograph taken by a crested black macaque named Naruto, known world-wide as the “monkey selfie”. This unusual event sparked a highly publicized legal battle with profound implications for the realms of intellectual property, animal rights and the business of photography.
Our story on Monkey Selfie court battle continues after this advertisement:
The Origin of the ‘Monkey Selfie’
In 2011, David Slater embarked on a photographic expedition to the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. While working to capture images of the region’s wildlife, he encountered a troop of crested black macaques.
Using his extensive knowledge and experience, Slater managed to gain the trust of the macaques and set up his camera equipment in their midst.
It was during this setup that a curious macaque, later identified as Naruto, pressed the shutter button, producing a series of self-portraits that would become famously known as the ‘Monkey Selfies’.
One image, in particular, stood out—a grinning Naruto, staring directly into the camera. This photograph quickly gained worldwide attention, celebrated for its unique and humorous quality.
However, what began as a serendipitous moment of animal interaction soon spiraled into a contentious legal dispute.
The Legal Battle
The controversy surrounding the ‘Monkey Selfie’ began when the image was widely disseminated online, with many platforms and media outlets using the photograph without Slater’s explicit permission.
Slater asserted his copyright over the image, stating that despite Naruto’s role in pressing the shutter, it was his setup and the context he created that enabled the photograph to be taken.
In 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation refused to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library, arguing that copyright is held by the creator and a non-human creator cannot hold copyright. Consequently, they claimed that the images were deemed to be in the public domain.
David Slater claimed in August 2014 that the availability of these pictures on Wikipedia had caused him to lose at least £10,000 (equivalent to £14,143 in 2023) in income, significantly harming his business as a wildlife photographer.
However, in 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming that the macaque should be the legal copyright holder of the photograph.
PETA argued that Naruto, as the creator of the image, owned the rights to the photograph and that any profits derived from its use should benefit him and his community.
Lawyers for Slater argued his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., owned worldwide commercial rights to the photos.
The Court’s Decision
The case, Naruto v. Slater, was unprecedented and drew significant media attention. In 2016, a U.S. federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that animals do not have legal standing to hold copyrights.
PETA appealed the decision, but in 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing that copyright protection is limited to human authors.
Despite the legal victories, the prolonged litigation had severe financial and emotional repercussions for Slater. The legal costs associated with defending his copyright claim and the resultant loss of income from his photography business left him bankrupt.
The case highlighted the complexities and ambiguities in copyright law, particularly concerning works created in unconventional circumstances.
The Aftermath and Implications
The ‘Monkey Selfie’ case sparked widespread debate about the rights of animals and the scope of intellectual property law. While the courts ultimately ruled against PETA’s claim, the case underscored the need for clearer legal definitions and protections regarding works created with the involvement of animals.
For David Slater, the experience was both a professional triumph and a personal tragedy. The ‘Monkey Selfie’ brought him global recognition, but the subsequent legal battle and financial strain overshadowed this achievement.
Slater’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the unpredictable nature of intellectual property disputes and the potential for well-intentioned activism to have unintended consequences.
David Slater issued a statement: “Not only did I raise money for the conservation project, through canvas sales kindly donated by Picanova and direct print sales, but I helped the group to promote a new code of ethics when visiting these macaques in Sulawesi. I am now told that the increased interest in these macaques has led to an increase in tourism to the area, with many hoping for a similar experience to the one I had.”
“Due to the success of the photographs, close contact with these animals has now to be discouraged. Their fascination with humans can only lead to trouble, such as biting and even possible disease communication.”
David Slater’s journey with the ‘Monkey Selfie’ is a remarkable narrative that intersects wildlife photography, legal controversy, and the evolving discourse on animal rights.
While the photograph highlights the unexpected moments that can occur in the field of wildlife photography, the fallout from the legal battle serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges that photographers can face in protecting their creative works.
Ultimately, the ‘Monkey Selfie’ case has set an uncomfortable legal precedent and affected the business of photography and intellectual property law, illustrating the delicate balance between human creativity and animal interaction.
David Slater’s book is available on Amazon: WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES Hardcover, 2014 by David J Slater
David J Slater’s website is here
Related stories
Melbourne Fashion Week 2024 says No More Feathers
Greater Glider heading for extinction
National Threatened Species Day 2023
Fashion To Die For: Hermès crocodile farms in Australia
