Paul Antai
A photograph is taken when someone sets up a camera and captures a moment. But what happens when the photographer isn’t human? Can a photograph taken by an animal have a copyright owner, and if so, who should own it?
In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater travelled to the Tangkoko Reserve in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, to photograph the island’s crested black macaques. While he was there, one of the macaques, named Naruto, interacted with his camera and took several photographs, including the famous selfie that would later trigger a remarkable copyright dispute.
Copyright is a legal protection given to the creators of original works. It can apply to photographs, books, music, works of art, and other forms of intellectual property. However, the monkey selfie raised an unusual question: does copyright require a human creator, or can an animal also have the right to own the copyright to a photograph it takes?
David Slater claimed copyright over the photographs, but Wikimedia treated them as being in the public domain because they had been created by a non-human animal. This meant that the photographs could be shared without copyright restrictions, based on that position. Slater, however, maintained that he should be recognised as the copyright owner, and the disagreement eventually developed into a legal battle.
The dispute took another turn when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) became involved. In 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf against Slater and others, arguing that the macaque should be recognised as the copyright owner of the photographs. The case raised a fundamental legal question: can an animal legally own copyright and take legal action to protect it?
In 2016, a U.S. district court dismissed the lawsuit, and in 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the decision that Naruto could not bring a copyright claim under the U.S. Copyright Act. The courts did not recognise Naruto as a copyright owner with the right to pursue the case. However, the legal battle did not end with the court’s ruling alone.
In September 2017, PETA and Slater reached a settlement. Slater agreed to donate 25 per cent of any future gross revenue he received from the monkey selfie photographs to charities dedicated to protecting Naruto and other crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia. The parties also agreed to seek the dismissal of the appeal. Although the settlement did not establish Naruto as the legal owner of the photographs, it brought the dispute closer to an end and linked the photographs’ future earnings to the protection of the animals and their environment.
Years later, the case remains relevant to photographers, journalists, writers, and other creators because it highlights the importance of copyright and ownership in the digital age.
Copyright helps protect original work against unauthorised use, while proper attribution allows audiences to identify the people responsible for creating it. The monkey selfie dispute raises a more basic question: what happens when the person claiming ownership is not the one who actually pressed the camera’s shutter?
The internet has made it easier than ever to share photographs and other creative works across different platforms. While this creates opportunities for people to access and distribute information, it also makes questions of ownership, permission, and attribution increasingly important. The monkey selfie case reminds us that sharing an image widely does not automatically settle the question of who owns it.
Ultimately, the story of Naruto and David Slater is more than a photograph of a monkey. It is about the boundaries of copyright law and how the law defines a creator. Naruto may never have been recognised as the legal owner of the selfie, but the photograph forced courts and the public to consider a question that had rarely received such attention: if an animal can take a photograph, does that automatically make it its owner?
