In 2011, the world was introduced to a small, crested macaque named Naruto, who took an iconic selfie with a camera belonging to renowned nature photographer David Slater. What followed is a legal battle that has spanned years and stirred up controversy among animal rights activists, photographers, and lawyers. The case of Naruto v. David Slater et al. was a landmark case that brought forward the issue of who holds the copyright to a photograph taken by an animal.
The Origins of the Case
In 2011, David Slater was in Sulawesi, Indonesia, looking for rare and exotic wildlife to photograph. On one of his days, he left his camera unattended on a tripod and Naruto, a crested macaque, happened upon it. Naruto took a series of selfies with the camera, and the now-famous images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Slater attempted to have the photographs removed from the site, claiming copyright infringement. However, Wikimedia Commons refused his request, stating that because the photographs were taken by an animal, they did not qualify for copyright protection.
The Court Case
In 2015, Slater filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation, asserting that he was the copyright holder of the photographs taken by Naruto. In 2016, the US Copyright Office rejected Slater’s claim, stating that animals are not able to own copyrights. In 2017, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming that as the photographer of the photographs, he was entitled to the copyright. The case was heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with Judge William Orrick presiding.
The Ruling
In 2018, Judge Orrick ruled in favor of PETA, stating that animals are not able to own copyrights, but the act of taking a photograph is a creative act, and as such, the copyright should belong to the photographer. In this case, the photographer was Naruto. He awarded PETA with a statutory damages award of $1.00, and ordered that PETA and Slater enter into a settlement agreement to determine the disposition of the photographs.
The Aftermath of the Case
The case of Naruto v. David Slater et al. has had far-reaching implications for photographers, animal rights activists, and lawyers. For photographers, the case serves as a reminder that photographs taken by animals can be copyrighted and should be respected as such. For animal rights activists, the case has highlighted the need for better protection for animals, as well as recognizing their creative contributions. And for lawyers, the case has raised questions about the legal implications of copyrighting photographs taken by non-human entities.
The Future of the Case
The case of Naruto v. David Slater et al. is still ongoing. In 2021, PETA and Slater reached a settlement agreement, which gave PETA the rights to the photographs taken by Naruto. The photographs were made available to the public, and PETA used the proceeds to benefit Naruto and other animals living in the wild. Going forward, the case will likely serve as a precedent for similar cases, and set the standard for copyrighting photographs taken by animals.
The Importance of the Case
The case of Naruto v. David Slater et al. is an important one, as it highlights the need for greater protection for animals and their creative contributions. The case also raises questions about the implications of copyright law and who should be held accountable for photographs taken by animals. Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder that animals are capable of creative acts, and should be respected as such.
Conclusion
The case of Naruto v. David Slater et al. is a landmark case that has stirred up debate among animal rights activists, photographers, and lawyers. It has highlighted the need for better protection for animals and their creative contributions, as well as the implications of copyright law. Going forward, the case will likely serve as a precedent for similar cases, and set the standard for copyrighting photographs taken by animals.
