Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737 Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737Ape-ellate Court: When a Monkey Files for Copyrights
Meet Naruto, a crested macaque, who, according to some legal filings, isn’t just an aspiring wildlife photographer but also a would-be plaintiff. In 2018, a monkey walked into a federal court (metaphorically) claiming copyright infringement. What followed was a tale of constitutional standing, statutory interpretation, and, quite frankly, a lot of bananas.
The “Monkey Selfies” That Started It All
In 2011, photographer David Slater left his camera unattended in Indonesia. Naruto, a mischievous macaque, seized the opportunity and snapped several selfies that would make even the most seasoned influencer jealous. These “Monkey Selfies” soon went viral, with Slater publishing them in a book.
While the world chuckled over the grinning primate, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had other ideas. They filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, arguing the monkey owned the copyright to his artistic masterpiece. Slater’s alleged “exploitation” of Naruto’s work was, PETA claimed, a violation of the monkey’s rights. Slater countered by noting the absurdity of the claim and defended his right to the photos.
The Courtroom Goes Wild
The Ninth Circuit Court faced an unusual task: determine if a monkey could sue for copyright infringement. Here’s where it gets delightfully convoluted.
Step 1: Article III Standing
Under the U.S. Constitution, Naruto had to prove he had an injury, causation, and redressability. Surprisingly, the court held that Naruto met this threshold…sort of. Because PETA claimed Naruto suffered “economic harm” from Slater’s commercial use of the selfies, the monkey satisfied the basic criteria for constitutional standing. However, this was only the beginning of the legal gymnastics.
Step 2: Statutory Standing
To bring a claim under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must qualify as an “author” under the statute. And not so surprisingly, Congress has never explicitly granted animals the right to sue for copyright infringement. The court ruled that Naruto’s Article III standing didn’t matter because he lacked statutory standing. The Copyright Act simply doesn’t envision macaques filing lawsuits—even artistic ones.
PETA’s Gambit Falls Apart
Adding a layer of complexity, PETA wasn’t acting as Naruto’s attorney but as his “next friend.” To qualify, PETA needed to show a significant relationship with Naruto. Unfortunately for PETA, spending time advocating for animal rights in general didn’t meet the burden. PETA’s lack of a meaningful connection to Naruto led Judge N.R. Smith to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to even hear the case.
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, granting attorney fees to Slater. It was a firm judicial statement: animals can’t sue under the Copyright Act, no matter how photogenic they might be.
Why Should Montanans Care?
Now, you might wonder: how does a monkey’s copyright case matter to anyone outside the Ninth Circuit, let alone in Montana? As it turns out, this peculiar case offers lessons that hit close to home.
Montana’s courts, like the Ninth Circuit, operate under tight resources. Cases like Naruto’s highlight the importance of filtering claims that lack statutory backing. This ensures the courts can focus on disputes that genuinely need resolution. For Montanans navigating their own legal battles, this case serves as a reminder to ground claims in solid legal footing, not novelty.
While PETA’s arguments were unique, this case underscores the limits of creative legal arguments. Montanans care deeply about wildlife conservation and animal welfare, but expanding animal rights into the realm of intellectual property might do more harm than good. Imagine if your horse could sue for patent infringement or your cat claimed royalties for appearing in a viral TikTok. The possibilities are endless—and absurd.
Slater’s victory came with a silver lining: he recouped his attorney’s fees. For Montana litigants, this is a crucial point. Whether you’re in a small claims dispute or a complex federal case, the possibility of paying the other side’s legal bills should always factor into your strategy.
Laughs Aside, There’s a Serious Takeaway
Naruto’s case might sound like a legal circus, but it brings up an important question: who owns intellectual property created by non-humans? As artificial intelligence (AI) and automation become increasingly sophisticated, this debate will resurface in a more serious context. Today’s monkey selfies could be tomorrow’s AI-generated art, and courts will need to clarify how copyright law applies.
Final Thoughts
In the end, Naruto’s foray into the legal system was as short-lived as a fruit snack on the forest floor. The Ninth Circuit sent a clear message: only humans (and certain legal entities) get to play in the copyright sandbox. While the case provided endless fodder for late-night comedy, it also reinforced the importance of staying grounded in the law’s text and purpose.
So, the next time you see a cheeky macaque grinning at you from your newsfeed, remember: he might be a talented photographer, but he’s no match for the Copyright Act. And if you’re filing a lawsuit in Montana, leave the primates out of it.
To read more articles like this one, or to sign up for a free consultation today, please visit our site.