‘Naruto v. Slater’ Case Summary
Case Name: Naruto, by and through his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al. v. David Slater, et al.
Index Number: 3:15-cv-04324
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
In September 2015, PETA Foundation lawyers filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a male crested black macaque named Naruto. Well known to field researchers in Sulawesi, Indonesia, Naruto achieved worldwide fame after he picked up a camera and began taking photographs—some of the forest floor, some of other macaques, and several of himself, one of which resulted in a now-famous “monkey selfie.”
Naruto’s Rights Under U.S. Copyright Law
Acting as Naruto’s “next friend,” PETA filed the lawsuit against the owner of the camera, photographer David J. Slater, and his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., which both claimed copyright ownership of the photos that Naruto indisputably had taken. Also named as a defendant was the San Francisco–based publishing company Blurb Inc., which published a collection of Slater’s photographs, including two selfies taken by Naruto, in a book, Wildlife Personalities, sold throughout the U.S. and internationally. The defendants also used a number of commercial services to sell copies of the selfies.
The lawsuit sought to have Naruto declared the “author” and owner of his photos and thus the legal recipient of any rightful proceeds, based on a simple argument: U.S. copyright law doesn’t prohibit an animal from owning a copyright, and since Naruto took the photos, he should own the copyrights, as any human would. As relief, the lawsuit asked that the court ensure that all net proceeds from the sale, licensing, or other commercial use of Naruto’s photos be used solely for the benefit of Naruto and his community of crested macaques and the preservation of their habitat.
The Court’s Decision
In January 2016, the court ruled against Naruto, granting a motion to dismiss. During oral argument, the judge, William Orrick, conceded that in his view, his hands were tied by prevailing norms: “I’m not the person to weigh into this,” Orrick said from the bench, suggesting that if the political branches wanted to clarify that animals have the right of copyright ownership, “they’re free, I think, under the Constitution, to do that.” In his decision, published on January 28, 2016, Orrick elaborated on his view that regardless of the plain text of the law, he would not grant animals affirmative legal rights absent explicit language that “evidence[s] congressional intent to confer standing on animals.” In his view, the mere fact that the law makes “no mention of [nonhuman] animals anywhere in the Act” was sufficient.
9th Circuit Decision and Settlement
In September 2017, following the plaintiff’s appeal and oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the parties agreed to a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, Slater agreed to donate 25% of future gross revenue of the images taken by Naruto to charitable organizations that protect Naruto, his community, or their habitat. As part of the settlement, the parties asked the court to drop the lawsuit and vacate the decision. The parties released a joint statement stating the following:
“PETA and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for nonhuman animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal.”
Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit issued a decision in July 2017 affirming the district court’s ruling and concluding that Naruto lacked standing.
Raising Awareness
That this argument was so simple is what made it an ideal vehicle to advance PETA’s mission of increasing public recognition of the fact that animals should enjoy rights for their own sake and not in relation to their exploitation by humans. And that it did. The case not only is now a staple in law school curricula but also stands as an iconic exemplar of how the law irrationally discriminates against nonhuman animals.
The latter is due, in part, to the massive media coverage the lawsuit received—including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major newspapers; major entertainment outlets like The Hollywood Reporter; and major television and radio networks like the BBC, CNN, and NPR. In 2018, Condé Nast Entertainment even bought the rights to the story from Slater. The case currently has its own Wikipedia page and is still the subject of frequent commentary in law reviews and within the intellectual property community.
