Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke

from the so-settlement-makes-sense dept

It may finally be ending. The dumbest copyright lawsuit we've seen in a long time (and that's saying a lot) about a silly topic. We've been covering the story of the monkey selfie from basically the very beginning (and often get mentioned in stories about it, as we'll discuss below). But, the story that began as a weird quirk of explaining how copyright law works -- and how many people don't believe it works the way it does -- got stupid in a hurry once PETA and the formerly respected law firm of Irell & Manella got involved. And, now, finally, the case may be ending in a settlement.

A settlement totally makes sense here, because the plaintiff knows it's going to lose in embarrassing fashion if the case moves forward, and the defendant is broke, in part because of this case (though some people -- including the photographer -- appear to be partially blaming us*). If you somehow haven't followed this story the very, very quick recap is that a photographer named David Slater went to Indonesia where he was taking photographs in a national park, and at some point at least one (and possibly more?) macaque monkeys played with his camera and took some photos with it, including some selfies, which were mildly amusing. As we noted in a long discussion on this, technically the photos are almost certainly in the public domain (read that post to learn why if you don't believe it). David Slater disagrees with this and insists the copyright is his, and has had various representatives at times send totally bogus and severely confused threat letters. However, nearly all serious legal commentary has recognized that the works are in the public domain. That's just how copyright law works, whether you like it or not.

Either way, there's one thing that Slater and I agree on: the monkey doesn't hold the copyright... and PETA (an organization that often seems to care more about publicity stunts than animals) two years ago kicked off a monumentally dumb lawsuit against Slater, claiming that the monkey held the copyright and that PETA represented the monkey. And, again, this can't be stated often enough: PETA brought on a previously respected copyright law firm, Irell & Manella, to handle this case and they proceeded to make some really crazy arguments, including suggesting that every work must have a copyright -- apparently writing the public domain right out of the law.

Either way, PETA lost badly in court, but still appealed. That appeal has not gone well. At a hearing last month, it appears that the judges could barely contain their laughter at just how stupid a lawsuit this really is. PETA knows it's going to lose and lose badly -- and thus has every incentive to settle this case before such a ruling is released.

As for Slater, well, he's been telling reporters that he's completely broke -- so clearly he has incentive to just get the case over with as well. And, I feel for him. Being sued over a completely bogus claim totally sucks. I know that all too well. So it's pretty sensible that all the parties in the lawsuit have told the court to hold off on ruling while they work out a settlement.

And, really, what a despicable case this was by PETA and Irell & Manella. Yes, I know that PETA's whole schtick is to do ridiculous publicity stunts, but this one had real costs. It wasted a bunch of time in the courts, and was really damaging to David Slater, who didn't deserve to be dragged into court by such an organization. One hopes that, at the very least, part of the settlement includes an apology.

---

* So, this is kind of a separate issue, but Slater occasionally points to Techdirt's articles about why the photos are in the public domain as part of the problem -- and the recent reporting on his claims of being broke have more or less repeated this. The first report we saw, in the Guardian, mentions us and Wikipedia as "refusing" to take the images down -- which... leaves out a big part of the story (i.e., it was in the context of explaining why the work was in the public domain under copyright law). We actually had a few angry people contact us over the Guardian story not realizing the details.

But that was nothing compared to what happened when the Daily Mail, the UK's worst newspaper, basically tried to rewrite the Guardian story and twisted our role even more:

His problems began when Californian-based blog Techdirt and the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (whose mission statement is 'to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free licence or in the public domain') muscled in.

"Muscled in?" Guys, all we did was write (accurately, I may add!) about the copyright issues when a monkey takes a selfie. That's not "muscling in." That's journalism. The Daily Mail might want to try it some day.

They claimed the image was uncopyrightable because the monkey was the creator — and so they uploaded the picture onto their websites, free for anyone to use. To Dave, this was an assault on his livelihood.

Understandably, he asked Techdirt and Wikipedia to stop using the pictures — but they refused. Faced with little choice, Dave decided to sue for up to £18,000, saying: 'There's a lot more to copyright than who pushes the trigger.'

At least the Daily Mail mentions that we explained why the work is in the public domain, but they make it sound like we were the ones doing the initial distribution of the photo. That's crazy. It was all over the internet. In fact, uh, we first read about the monkey in the Daily Fucking Mail. Seriously. Go look at the link in our first story. You want to know where we first got the photograph? The Daily Mail. Yet now the Daily Mail is blaming us for making the photo available? Are you fucking kidding me?

And, I have no idea what the hell they're talking about saying that Slater sued us for £18,000. This is the first we've heard of it.

But, here's the thing: after the Daily Mail article went online, we started getting quite a bit of hate mail, accusing us of bankrupting Slater. I feel bad for Slater, as his situation sounds bad. But we didn't sue him. We didn't take away his livelihood. We explained the law. That's it. You might not like the law, but the law would have been the same whether or not we wrote about it. Slater wouldn't have had the copyright either way. It's fair to blame PETA for hurting Slater, because they sued him for no damn reason at all. But we just reported on the situation accurately -- something it would be nice if the Daily Mail tried once in a while.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, public domain, settlement
Companies: irell & manella, peta

Monkey Selfie Case Gets Even Weirder, As The Monkey's 'Next Friends' Are In A Criminal Dispute With Each Other

from the monkey-business dept

If you thought the monkey selfie lawsuit couldn't get any weirder, well, you underestimated the monkey selfie case. If you don't remember, the details of this case go back a few years to when a photographer named David Slater got some press attention by claiming that a macaque monkey in Indonesia had come up to his camera, that was on the ground, and taken some selfies. As we explained ages ago, there is no copyright in such photos, because the copyright law in the US, in the UK (where Slater is from) and in Indonesia (where the monkey is) makes it clear that copyright is only available for human creations. Slater has long disagreed about this (and we've received some threats here and there, and he's trashed us personally for claiming the lack of copyright in those images). But... the lawsuit here was a bizarre twist on that. Slater wasn't suing anyone... instead, PETA, the group known more for its stupid publicity stunts than anything it's actually done to help animals, decided to sue Slater. PETA argued that it should hold the (non-existant) copyright on behalf of the monkey. Just because. And, on this, we agree with Slater that this is insane and an abuse of the legal system.

PETA is represented by a big time law firm (Irell & Manella) that apparently doesn't mind looking extraordinarily foolish for claiming that some totally unrelated third party could hold a copyright in a photograph for which no copyright can exist. Even worse, the lawyer from Irell & Manella -- again, a big time, well-regarded firm on copyright issues -- actually argued that there has to be a copyright in the image, apparently ignoring that things can be in the public domain. To make its case seem marginally stronger, PETA initially teamed up with a primatologist with a history of studying macaques, named Antje Engelhardt. This is how we found out that the macaque in question is supposedly named Naruto (though there had been some dispute about the sex of the macaque). Either way, the judge quickly and correctly pointed out that monkeys can't get a copyright and thus PETA and Engelhardt have no case at all (leaving aside the separate question of why they should get to grab the copyright should it actually exist... which, again, it does not).

PETA, never one to let a good stupid publicity stunt go to waste, then appealed and put forth more nonsense about how macaques are, like, super smart, which has nothing to do with whether or not it can hold a copyright (it can't).

But... things are getting even more bizarre. A year ago, soon after the appeals process began, Engelhardt dropped out of the case with no explanation. There was just a filing saying that "Dr. Englehardt will not continue as a next friend to appellant in this proceeding," leaving PETA alone as the supposed "Next Friend" of Naruto. But that seems tough to justify since in the original case, PETA leaned heavily on Engelhardt's experience to justify it's possible standing as a "next friend" of Naruto:

Since 2006, Dr. Engelhardt has served as the co-head of one of the foremost scientific projects studying the ecology, reproductive biology, and social systems of Sulawesi crested macaques in their natural habitat and promoting their conservation and protection. She is one of the world’s foremost experts on the Macaca nigra species.

Dr. Engelhardt and those with whom she works have known, monitored, and studied Naruto since his birth. Naruto and his matrilineal family are an integral part of the crested macaque population Dr. Engelhardt studies. She has the scientific and professional expertise, and commitment to consult and cooperate with PETA on behalf of Naruto, so that the proceeds from the administration of Naruto’s copyright in the Monkey Selfies are used for the protection of Naruto, his community and their habitat.

Seems kind of key to have Engelhardt involved. But, even without her, the case has continued to move forward and is set for oral arguments next month. But, last week, Slater's lawyers noted that the relationship between PETA and Engelhardt may be relevant, because Engelhardt is now facing criminal charges in New Jersey for harassing PETA's General Counsel (who's name is also a part of the case) and for trespassing on his property. From the complaint:

If you can't see that, the relevant portion reads:

... the named defendant... did... enter into [REDACTED] of Jeffery Kerr, a place to which notice against trespass was given by actual communication to the defendant knowing that she/he was not licensed or privileged to do so, specifically by ringing the doorbell of the residence, the owner telling subject to leave the residence, and the subject walked into the backyard of the residence.

[...] with purpose to harass another, make or cause to be made a communication or communications in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm, specifically by sending an text message stating that she was gonna stop by the victim's resident at a known time and date.

Now, admittedly the complaint's wording is a bit weird (yes, it literally says "gonna stop by"), and we might question the Constitutionality of a law that says you can't "cause annoyance" to someone, it certainly would appear that Engelhardt and PETA... are not thrilled with one another, and Engelhardt is now facing criminal charges because of it. As Slater's lawyers note:

Regardless of the merits or outcome of the criminal case against Dr. Engelhardt, its very existence is a relevant consideration on whether PETA can adequately represent the interests of Naruto, notwithstanding the documented animosity that has developed between PETA and Dr. Engelhardt.

And, thus, this already extraordinarily bizarre case gets that much more bizarre.

Filed Under: antje engelhardt, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie
Companies: peta

PETA Has Lost Its Monkey's 'Next Friend' In Its Crazy Copyright Case

from the the-monkey's-uncle-is-missing dept

The ongoing saga that is the monkey selfie lawsuit has continued to move forward, with the lawyers for photographer David Slater filing their brief in response to PETA's. As you probably recall, PETA had teamed up with a primatologist named Antje Engelhardt claiming to be "next friends" for the Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto, who is alleged to have taken the following selfie with David Slater's camera. Slater has claimed to hold the copyright on the photo for a long time, though he's wrong. But PETA is much more wrong in arguing that it can step in and claim both (a) that there is a copyright on the image and (b) that the monkey holds it. Slater is just wrong about the copyright existing.

Either way, the PETA case was easily tossed out of the district court based on the fact that monkeys can't get copyrights under US law (US laws don't apply to animals unless specifically stated -- this is why farms aren't legally considered murder camps, no matter what some vegetarians might say). And, of course, PETA appealed. And we expect it will go about as well as the district court case. But it may go even worse.

That's because in the reply, Slater's lawyer points out that not only can a monkey not hold a copyright, but also that PETA has even less standing than before, because the primatologist, Antje Engelhardt, has decided she's no longer a next friend of our buddy Naruto, the smiling monkey.

On appeal, the crazy got crazier. Dr. Engelhardt withdrew from the case. That leaves PETA, which does not allege any relationship with the monkey, as the monkey’s sole next friend.

[....]

Two putative next friends filed this action: PETA and Dr. Engelhardt, a primatologist who alleged that she has “known, monitored, and studied Naruto since his birth.” ER 23. It may well be that the relationship with Naruto Dr. Engelhardt alleged is “significant” under Coalition of Clergy v. Bush. However, Dr. Engelhardt moved to withdraw from the case, informing the Court that she “will not continue as a next friend to Appellant in this proceeding.” This Court granted Dr. Engelhardt’s motion, thus leaving PETA as Naruto’s lone putative next friend.

This is a fairly big problem for PETA and its big time (seriously) lawyers from the (previously respectable) law firm of Irell & Manella.

Unlike Dr. Engelhardt, PETA did not allege any relationship with Naruto, much less a significant one. That is a problem on appeal. PETA is now in a position very much like the ballot initiative defenders in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013): a party necessary for standing at the district court is not participating in the appeal. “[S]tanding must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.” Id. at 2661 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

All of the Naruto relationship allegations in the Complaint concern Dr. Engelhardt; none involve PETA.... PETA alleges no connection to Naruto, an Indonesian monkey who lives roughly 10,000 miles from PETA’s headquarters in Virginia.

In other words, even if Engelhardt had standing, PETA doesn't.

The filing also contains its fair share of monkey jokes, so we'll just end this post with a few of those:

Under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, monkey see, monkey sue is not good law under any Act of Congress unless the legislative text plainly grants non-human animals standing to sue.

[....]

The only pertinent fact in this case is that Naruto is a monkey suing for copyright infringement.

Either way, one hopes that the court makes quick work of this case as well, but it is 9th Circuit, which perhaps deserves copyright on its... creative interpretations of copyright law at times. Hopefully this isn't one of those cases.

Filed Under: animals, antje engelhardt, copyright, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, public domain, standing
Companies: irell & manella, peta

Primatologist Tells Court That Macaque Monkeys Are, Like, Super Smart, So They Should Totally Get Copyrights

from the oh-really-now? dept

The case of the monkey selfie keeps getting weirder and weirder. I'm not going to rehash the whole damn story again -- just click the monkey selfie link above and scroll through the posts. Here's the super short version though: A British photographer named David Slater left his camera on the ground in an Indonesian jungle, where a macaque monkey (which we're now, much later, told is named Naruto, though there's some dispute over this) approached the camera and took a selfie. There were all sorts of debates online about whether or not there was any copyright in the photo and, if so, who owned it, with Slater repeatedly insisting that he did (and occasionally having representatives threaten us). A few years later, out of the blue came PETA, claiming that it represented the monkey (Naruto) and was suing Slater for copyright infringement for publishing a book with the photos. A judge, rightly, tossed out the lawsuit, pointing out (as we had argued from the very beginning) that a monkey has no right to a copyright, and the law only applies to human persons. PETA and its actually well-known and until now mostly respected law firm, Irell & Manella, have appealed the ruling.

And, now, believe it or not, PETA has gotten a primatologist and apparent "macaque expert" named Agustin Fuentes to file an amicus brief supporting the idea that a macaque monkey taking a selfie should hold the copyright in the image. Fuentes may be a macaque expert, but he's not much of a copyright expert... and it shows. The brief mainly focuses on how smart macaque monkeys are, as evidence that being smart somehow means it deserves the copyright.

Naruto, like other macaques, had likely made the connection between manipulation of the camera as an item and the sound of the shutter and the changing image in the lens as the shutter clicked. This may have been interesting for Naruto as he was noted as performing this behavior many times. It is likely that he had seen the human manipulation of the camera and heard the sounds it made and, as is common for macaques, became curious to investigate it on his own. This in no way assumes Naruto had any cognizance of the concept of a photograph but rather that the actions and noises made by the camera were enticing and that through explorative manipulation Naruto was able to cause the camera to make such sounds/actions. Naruto intentionally engaged in interactions with the camera.

That's all nice and stuff, but is has fuck all to do with the question of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create works so that the public can enjoy them. It's the intent of copyright to create a limited monopoly such that the author of the work can use that artificial monopoly to earn money for some period of time, and those profits help incentivize the creation.

Yet here, Fuentes basically admits that it's not the copyright that's the incentive here, but the neat clicking sound and what happens when the shutter is pressed.

Particularly relevant for this case, macaques can frequently understand basic correlations between acts of object manipulation and specific results. There is no question that macaques manipulate material objects with an expectation of specific outcomes. They understand, for example, that by hitting snail shells with rocks, they can crack open and retrieve the snail. Naruto’s behavior in creating the photographs in dispute is consistent with a macaque’s interest in and capacity for sophisticated object manipulation. Naruto certainly understood that he was intentionally engaged in actions with an object that was stimulating. He could recognize the association between his actions and the shutter movement and sound. These photographs are not the result of an accident; they result from specific and intentional manipulation of the camera by Naruto.

Again, even if true, that means absolutely nothing for the copyright question. The laws apply to people, not to animals, unless expressly written that way. That's a basic tenet of the law. The only weak attempt to tie this back to the copyright question is basically Fuentes and his lawyer arguing that "the law changes based on new data."

Some of the Supreme Court’s most significant modern decisions have hinged, at least in part, on attempts to understand emerging science and empirical data.

This is also true... but irrelevant. It absolutely does not matter. And, on top of that, he's introducing no new "science" here other than "macaque monkeys are smart." So what? That has no bearing on whether or not a monkey gets a copyright -- to which the answer is as pretty definitive: Hell no.

Filed Under: agustin fuentes, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, primatologist, public domain
Companies: peta

The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit

from the satire-is-dead dept

Welp. Here we go again. For many, many years, we've been tracking the insane legal situation of the selfie-taking monkey, whose name we were told only recently is "Naruto." Early on in this saga, back in 2011, our focus was on how the photographer whose camera was used, David Slater, had no legitimate claim to the copyright in the image, in large part because the copyright goes to whoever took the photo, and the copyright cannot go to a monkey, because copyright law is limited to "persons." Every so often Slater would pop up somewhere or somehow and yell about this -- twice representatives of his even threatened us with completely bogus legal action.

However, things took a turn for the even more bizarre a year ago when PETA, an organization that sometimes appears to focus more on professional trolling rather than on the "ethical treatment of animals" as its name suggests, claimed to represent the monkey (Naruto!) and sued Slater himself for falsely claiming the copyright. While we agree that Slater doesn't hold the copyright, neither does the monkey, because no one holds the copyright.

Amazingly, PETA, claiming to represent the interests of an Indonesian monkey, somehow secured the services of a really big name law firm, Irell & Manella, whose name should always be associated with the fact that it took this insane case. Irell & Manella (again, somehow, this is considered a respected law firm) took the nutty position that there must be a copyright in the image, and thus the monkey deserves to get it. It completely ignores the fact that not everything gets a copyright. It's as if the lawyers at Irell & Manella don't even understand how copyright law works.

The judge in the case made quick work of this and confirmed, as pretty much everyone already recognized, that a monkey can't have copyright. But, this is PETA, and PETA won't give up until the trolling has completed its course. So it appealed and it has now filed its opening brief.

I have no idea if David Schwartz at Irell & Manella is doing this pro bono or actually wasting PETA's money here, but if I were a PETA supporter/donor, I'd be pissed off that this is the way the organization is burning money:

The Constitution authorizes Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Neither the Copyright Clause nor the Copyright Act contains on its face a limitation solely to authors with human attributes or characteristics. The district court erred in carving out such an exemption here. It is not necessary—indeed it is antithetical to the purpose of the Copyright Act—to specify who can be an author, as that question is determined by looking at the attributes of the work sought to be protected. The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship,” not works of “human authors.” See 17 U.S.C. § 102. Moreover, the Monkey Selfies have all the attributes required for protection under the Copyright Act. To exempt them from protection on the sole ground that Congress did not specify that animals can be authors assumes erroneously that such specification would have been necessary.

This is pure nuttiness. The monkey selfies do not have all the attributes required for protection, because protection only goes to human beings. Why? Because copyright is supposed to act as an incentive to create. The monkey has no fucking clue about the copyright, and it had nothing to do with the incentive to create. Because it's a monkey. In Indonesia. Named Naruto. Who has no idea that some ridiculous lawyers are now in an appeals court in California pretending to represent its "interests."

Since enacting the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress and the Supreme Court have instructed that the copyright laws should be interpreted liberally in order to safeguard the “general benefits derived by the public” from works of authorship. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). Because copyright protection exists primarily to advance society’s interest in increasing creative output, it follows that the protection under the Copyright Act does not depend on the humanity of the author, but on the originality of the work itself. The Copyright Act was intended to be broadly applied and to gradually expand to include new forms of expression unknown at the time it was enacted. Congress and the courts have explained that copyright protection is critical to ensuring the general public has access to works of authorship. The public places value in these works—and, self-evidently, so do the Defendants.

I cannot believe that lawyers are actually using the case that legalized the VCR (Sony v. Universal Studios) as the basis for arguing a monkey gets copyright. And copyright protection for a monkey is in no way critical for "ensuring the general public has access to works of authorship." It is not as if the monkey having or not having the copyright changes, in any way, the monkey's incentive to click buttons on cameras left on the ground.

The lawyers pretending to represent Naruto go on to claim that even though there's pretty clear 9th Circuit precedent saying that animals lack standing to sue unless expressly granted in the law, that doesn't apply to copyright law, because copyright law is just so awesome. And they continue to claim that copyright is necessary because the work is so valuable -- which is, you know, not how copyright law works:

Yet if animals cannot be authors, there is no copyright protection for their works.... This is fundamentally at odds with the fact that “[c]opyright protection extends to all ‘original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium’ of expression.” ... It is also antithetical to the public interest, and hence, the stated purpose of the Copyright Clause. There is no doubt that the general public has an interest in works of art, regardless of their authors’ characteristics or attributes. The tremendous interest in Naruto’s work and Defendants’ attempts to exploit that interest (and to bar others from doing so) only buttresses this conclusion.

The idea that the lawyers at Irell and Manella are literally arguing that the public domain is "antithetical to the public interest" should mark them as complete numbskulls on copyright law.

One hopes that the 9th Circuit will make quick work of this case and toss it out. But, of course, there is the fear that the 9th Circuit will do what it does all too often in copyright cases... and come out with some nutty decision. Remember, this is the circuit that (thankfully, only for a short while before it reconsidered) decided that there was a brand new separate copyright for every actor's performance in a film -- so you could see the case come out with some totally ridiculous result. So, stay tuned. Plenty of us will be, though I can assure you that a certain macaque monkey in Indonesia could not care any less about these proceedings, even if he's officially the plaintiff in the case.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto
Companies: irell & manella, peta

PETA, Pretending It Can Represent A Photogenic, Selfie-Snapping Monkey In Indonesia, Has Appealed Its Copyright Loss

from the this-case-is-bananas dept

When we last we checked in with Naruto the monkey, he was suffering a humiliating loss in a California courtroom. It was enough that it probably wiped this smile right off Naruto's face: Aw, who are we kidding? The monkey has no clue about any of this. It's a monkey! The case is really about a giant publicity stunt by PETA, which is pretending to represent the monkey and claiming that a monkey taking a selfie can get a copyright. Incredibly, PETA hired a big time, previously well-respected law firm by the name of Irell & Manella, which argued with apparently straight faces that someone must own the copyright, and thus the monkey (and PETA) were the most obvious choice. But, that's something anyone with even the most marginal knowledge of copyright should know is not true, because we have something called the public domain. No one needs to hold the copyright because there might not be a copyright (and in this case, there is none).

Anyway, back in January, district court judge William Orrick explained all of that to PETA and its fancy lawyers, but gave them a chance to amend the complaint and refile. When the deadline passed with nary a smiling monkey complaint, many of us figured that PETA had moved on to some other lame publicity stunt. But, no, this weekend PETA's bananas law firm announced a planned appeal, filing the necessary notice with the district court.

In other words, the 9th Circuit -- home to some of the wackier copyright rulings ever -- will now hear a case about whether or not an Indonesian monkey, who took a selfie, gets the copyright. The whole idea is crazy, but remember, this is the same appeals court that once (briefly) ruled that an actress had a copyright in her own performance in a movie.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, appeal, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto
Companies: irell & manella, peta

Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright

from the sorry-folks dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about some details from the court hearing in the ridiculous monkey selfie case in which PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) claimed not only that it represented Naruto, an Indonesian macaque monkey, but that the monkey should hold the copyright on this selfie: However, as we've explained time and time again (much to the chagrin of David Slater, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photo), the photo is clearly in the public domain, as it's long been held that the Copyright Act only applies to human authors. In court a few weeks ago, the judge made it clear he didn't believe PETA had any case at all, but Judge William Orrick has now come out with his written opinion in the case explaining his reasoning why. Not surprisingly, it more or less tracks with what he said in court: there is no evidence that the Copyright Act applies to monkeys, and thus, case dismissed -- with leave to amend. The judge cites numerous cases in which the courts clearly say the Copyright Act means a "person" when it refers to author... and PETA cited a grand total of zero cases that argued otherwise:

Here, the Copyright Act does not “plainly” extend the concept of authorship or statutory standing to animals. To the contrary, there is no mention of animals anywhere in the Act. The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly referred to “persons” or “human beings” when analyzing authorship under the Act. See, e.g., Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n author superintends the work by exercising control. This will likely be a person who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be.”) (internal quotation marks, citations and modifications omitted) (emphasis added); Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1997) (“For copyright purposes, however, a work is copyrightable if copyrightability is claimed by the first human beings who compiled, selected, coordinated, and arranged [the work].”) (emphasis added); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) (“As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is the person who translates an idea in a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.”) (emphasis added). Despite Next Friends’ assertion that declining to grant a monkey copyright to a photograph “would depart from well-established norms,” Next Friends have not cited, and I have not found, a single case that expands the definition of authors to include animals.

And the judge is also convinced by the Copyright Office rejecting non-human copyrights as well:

Moreover, the Copyright Office agrees that works created by animals are not entitled to copyright protection. It directly addressed the issue of human authorship in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices issued in December 2014 (the “Compendium”). “When interpreting the Copyright Act, [the courts] defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretations in the appropriate circumstances.”... In section 306 of the Compendium, entitled “The Human Authorship Requirement,” the Copyright Office relies on citations from Trade-Mark Cases, 101 U.S. 94 (1879) and Burrow-Giles to conclude that it “will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.”... Similarly, in a section titled “Works That Lack Human Authorship,” the Compendium states that, “[t]o qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being. Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable.”... Specifically, the Copyright Office will not register works produced by “nature, animals, or plants” including, by specific example, a “photograph taken by a monkey.”

And thus, sucks for Naruto (and PETA):

Naruto is not an “author” within the meaning of the Copyright Act. Next Friends argue that this result is “antithetical” to the “tremendous [public] interest in animal art.” ... Perhaps. But that is an argument that should be made to Congress and the President, not to me. The issue for me is whether Next Friends have demonstrated that the Copyright Act confers standing upon Naruto. In light of the plain language of the Copyright Act, past judicial interpretations of the Act’s authorship requirement, and guidance from the Copyright Office, they have not.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, monkeys, naruto, public domain
Companies: peta

Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again

from the monkey-business dept

As you know, we've been covering PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)'s absolutely insane lawsuit claiming to represent the monkey who took this selfie: We'd been covering the story of that selfie for years, since first noting that it was almost certainly in the public domain, as copyright law only recognizes human authors. This discussion spurred not one, but two, separate legal threats made against us by representatives of David Slater, the guy whose camera the monkey used. It's also gotten Wikipedia involved (after Slater asked the site to not allow the image to be used, while Wikipedia agreed with us that the image is public domain).

However, the case took a turn towards the absolutely surreal when PETA stepped in, claimed that it represented the monkey (which it decided is named "Naruto") and that the monkey did, in fact, hold the copyright. It also sued Slater, who despite saying mean things about us in particular, we side with in this case in at least saying that PETA has zero claim, and it's ridiculous that they've dragged Slater into court. Since then, the legal arguments have been increasingly surreal.

Yesterday in San Francisco, Judge William Orrick, held a hearing over the request by Slater (and his publishing partner Blurb, who is a co-defendant) to dismiss the case entirely, because it's about a freaking monkey copyright. The judge, apparently, was somewhat amused by the whole situation, but did not appear even remotely sympathetic to PETA's arguments (for which, I should remind you, the organization is using a very well-known IP law firm, Irell & Manella). Judge Orrick didn't dismiss the case outright, but rather gave PETA a chance to amend the suit after noting some issues with it as it stands. PETA now has to decide if it's even worth it to submit a new complaint, recognizing that the judge may not be particularly open to their whole "animals can get copyright" arguments.

Reporter Sarah Jeong, who attended the hearing, noted some of the more insane arguments from PETA's lawyers (again, from a big, well-recognized law firm), including the idea that "if there's an author, it follows that there must be a copyright" (that's flat out false), and if there's "value" in the image, that also means there must be a copyright. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. And thankfully, the judge appears to recognize that. Oh, and how can I forget the argument that this is just like how slaves couldn't own patents before the 14th Amendment. Except this case is nothing like that (at all).

Anyway, the case isn't over yet. PETA might decide to walk away, but since this is all just a giant publicity stunt for PETA (don't worry, we didn't forget that!), that seems unlikely. It's likely that they'll try again and get laughed out of court.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, peta, public domain
Companies: blurb, peta

The Selfie Monkey Strikes Back: Lawyers Claim Of Course Monkeys Can Sue For Copyright

from the because-they-can't dept

The monkey selfie story is the gift that keeps on giving. When we last left the monkey, who PETA insists goes by the name "Naruto," the website Blurb and the didn't-take-the-monkey-photos-photographer David Slater had both pointed out to the court the simple fact that monkeys can't sue for copyright infringement and the lawsuit that PETA filed on behalf of the monkey was completely ridiculous. If you don't recall, these monkey selfies are unquestionably in the public domain, even if Slater still argues that he holds the copyright on them. He didn't take the photos, as his own statements indicate, and thus the photos are in the public domain (longer explanation at that link). But the idea that the monkey might own the copyright is something that Slater and I completely agree on: it's not even in the realm of possibility. Until PETA sued it was only in the realm of satire.

Anyway, PETA's lawyers at the (formerly) prestigious law firm of Irell & Manella have struck back with a filing defending the lawsuit, which they insist is, like, totally real and legit. Which it's not. That Irell & Manella would let itself get played by PETA for a stupid publicity stunt that serves no purpose other than to waste the court's time, really speaks poorly of that firm. Their argument is based on the silly idea that "well, someone must own it, and thus, it should be the monkey." This is wrong on both points, but we'll get there. First, the argument:

This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether human authorship is required for protection of works under the Copyright Act. There is no dispute here that Naruto took the photographs spontaneously and without human assistance. In every practical (and definitional) sense, he is the “author” of the works. Defendants argue that animals have no standing under the statute—that they cannot be “authors.” Yet none of the Defendants suggests that they have any entitlement to ownership of the works. Defendant Blurb implies that any work created by an animal falls into the public domain; Defendant Slater does not argue here that he owns the copyright. These positions are both inconsistent with other statements made by Defendants and wholly inconsistent with the premise of the Copyright Act—every copyright must have an author. And both Blurb and Mr. Slater ignore the fundamental question posed here: Does the Copyright Act permit Plaintiff’s ownership of the works or give him standing to assert claims under that statute? The answer to both questions is “Yes.”

This is wrong on multiple levels. First, even though I totally disagree with him, Slater claims that he holds the copyright. He's also been creatively revising his story since it first came out to suggest that he played a larger role than originally implied in getting the monkey ("Naruto" or not) to take the photo. Second, this belief that (a) there must be a copyright and (b) someone must hold it is wrong. As we've discussed, this is a bit of dangerous thinking, that every bit of cultural output must be "owned" via copyright law. But that's not what the law says at all. It is entirely possible for new works to be created that are in the public domain, and this is clearly one of them.

As for the idea that a monkey can hold the copyright, that has long been debunked. We've said it a bunch of times already, but the Copyright Office itself has made it clear that a work must be created by a human being to be eligible for copyright. David Schwartz, the Irell & Manella lawyer who really is a lawyer, who actually graduated from Duke Law School and clerked for Judge Kozinski, then doubles down on the crazy by arguing that since copyright law was intended to benefit the public by creating incentives for creativity, it's obvious that they meant to cover monkeys.

The text of the statute itself does not compel the conclusion that authorship may be vested exclusively in humans. To the contrary: Since enacting the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress and the Supreme Court have instructed that the copyright laws should be interpreted liberally in order to safeguard the “general benefits derived by the public” from works of authorship.... Copyright protection advances that goal by allowing authors to “disclose” their works without losing control of them.

Think about this for a second. He's trying to claim, first, that Naruto the monkey (who many people dispute even took the photo), not only put such creative thought into the "authorship" of the photo, but also that the monkey requires the exclusivity provided by copyright to properly incentivize the production of the photograph.

Just what kind of monkey crap is that? Copyright law is an incentive to create and then, yes, to distribute. But the monkey doesn't need such an incentive. The monkey was not and is not thinking "gee, if only I could protect this image, well, that's a reason to take this photograph." It's a monkey.

Every copyright must have an “author.” If there is no author, there is no copyright

Yes, and the courts have long recognized that an "author" is a human. Thus, you've just made the case that there is no copyright here. Because there isn't. The photograph is in the public domain.

A key part of PETA's argument that copyright holders don't need to be people is... that corporations can hold copyrights:

In allowing both corporate authors and anonymous authors, the Copyright Act stands in stark contrast to how Congress decided to provide for other intellectual property rights, such as patents. Under the Patent Act, the “inventor”—i.e., patent law’s equivalent of a copyright “author”—specifically excludes corporations and other non-natural persons.... Thus, if Congress wanted to exclude non-human authorship rights, it knew how to do so and would have enacted parallel features into the Copyright Act.

It seems unlikely that this argument will go very far.

Finally, the lawyer seems to argue with a straight face that the public domain is antithetical to the concept of copyright by saying it's impossible to imagine that Congress wanted to support the public domain when it created copyright law. Really.

Without an author, there can be no “fixation,” no “work of authorship,” and thus, no copyright.... Thus, if an animal cannot be an “author,” then any work which “owes its origin” to an animal will not have copyright protection.

Such a result is antithetical to the public interest, and hence, the intent of the drafters of the Copyright Act.

Um, no. That's not antithetical to the public interest at all, unless you believe that the drafters of the Copyright Act didn't believe in the public domain, which they clearly do. The motion was written by someone who appears not to know the first thing about actual copyright law and the concept of the public domain. Again, this is a total embarrassment for Irell & Manella -- a firm that is engaged in lots of big copyright cases. Everyone knows that PETA plays stupid publicity stunts. But for an actual high profile law firm to make arguments like these is an embarrassment.

Filed Under: copyright, david schwartz, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, naruto, ownership, public domain
Companies: blurb, irell & manella, peta

Monkey See, Monkey Sue... Defendants Ask Judge To Toss Out Ridiculous Monkey Copyright Lawsuit

from the good-going dept

So at the end of September, we wrote about the absolutely insane lawsuit in which PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- bizarrely claimed to be representing "Naruto" (whose name we only just learned with that lawsuit), as the "copyright holder" of the image below. Naruto, of course, is the macaque monkey who is famous for taking this photo: Now, we've been writing about this monkey selfie for years now, mostly focusing on why the photo is clearly in the public domain. This issue comes up periodically, with the photographer whose camera "Naruto" used, David Slater, often taking random potshots at Techdirt for explaining basic copyright law to the public. Slater, as you may recall, still likes to insist that he holds the copyright on the photo, and twice has had companies apparently representing himself make dubious legal threats in our general direction.

Still, in a fight between PETA and Slater, we're totally on Slater's side. PETA has even less of a right to the copyright in the photo than Slater -- and Slater has none. Either way, PETA's lawsuit against Slater (along with Blurb, the publishing platform that Slater used to publish a book with the photo) has moved forward with both Slater and Blurb filing motions to dismiss. And given just how ridiculous this lawsuit is, these briefs fit right in. You can tell the lawyers had fun writing these. Slater's motion to dismiss is short and sweet (only 4 pages) and has a truly beautiful opening:

A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punchline is really happening. It should not be happening. Under Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004), dismissal of this action is required for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law – at least not in the Ninth Circuit.

Not surprisingly, Slater's lawyer doesn't even get into the whole public domain/copyright question at all. Instead, they just focus on the fact that a monkey has no standing to state a claim, and thus the case should be dismissed:

“[I]f Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly.” Cetacean Community, 386 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v. New England Aquarium, 836 F. Supp. 45, 49 (D. Mass. 1993)). In Cetacean Community, the Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that non-human animals could have standing under four Acts of Congress, including two that Congress enacted for the protection of animals: the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 386 F.3d at 1177-78. The standing inquiry for animals under Cetacean Community is very simple: unless Congress has plainly stated that animals have standing to sue, the federal courts will not read any legislation to confer statutory standing to animals. Id. at 1179.

Congress has not plainly stated that non-human animals have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Nothing in Title 17 of the United States Code even hints at that possibility. Indeed, imagining a monkey as the copyright “author” in Title 17 of the United States Code is a farcical journey Dr. Seuss might have written. The “children” of an “author” can inherit certain rights “whether legitimate or not” and that includes “children legally adopted” by the author. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, 203 and 304. An author’s “widow or widower owns the author’s entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author’s interest.” § 203(a)(2)(A). Accepting Plaintiff’s standing argument would present the bizarre possibility of protracted family and probate court battles when the offspring of non-human authors scrum over the rights to valuable works.

Meanwhile, the filing from Blurb is four times as long at 16 pages, and goes into a bit more depth, but is basically making the same argument -- and the lawyers can't resist a few monkey jokes of their own. The very first line makes that clear: "This is a copyright case filed on behalf of a monkey." And from there, Blurb makes a few different arguments, including the fact that a photo taken by a monkey cannot receive copyright protection:

As a threshold matter, Naruto lacks Article III standing to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Even if Naruto took the Monkey Selfies (a fact contradicted by allegations in the Complaint), he has suffered no injury, much less one that is redressable by this lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution and the Copyright Act contemplate copyright protection only for humans. Accordingly, the action should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.

Dismissal is also appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing and failure to state a claim. The Copyright Act affords no rights or protections to animals, the courts have repeatedly found that human authorship is required for copyright protection, and the U.S. Copyright Office has outright rejected any assertion that Copyright Act protects “photograph[s] taken by a monkey.” Accordingly, Next Friends cannot establish that Naruto owns a valid copyright, much less that it was infringed by Blurb. The entire Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

The Blurb filing also highlights (as some press reports have) that PETA swears that Naruto is a male macaque monkey -- while nearly all reports prior to this (including all explanations from Slater) have been that the monkey is female.

Of course, PETA will hit back on this, but we'll see if the judge lets this monkey business go on for much longer.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, peta, public domain
Companies: blurb, peta