Court: Monkey in selfie case has no right to sue for copyright infringement

SAN FRANCISCO -- Copyrights are for humans, not monkeys, even the creature that used a wildlife photographer's camera to take selfie photos that soon circulated worldwide, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The case stems from an incident in 2011, when British photographer David Slater, on a visit to the Tangkoko Reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia, put down his camera and walked away. When he looked back, a crested black macaque monkey was examining the camera, looking at a reflection in the lens, and, as Slater described it, making funny faces before snapping the shutter.

The photos became a hit on social media, while Slater went on to publish them in a 2014 book, ``Wildlife Personalities.'' That prompted the nonprofit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to file suit on behalf of the monkey, whom they named Naruto, claiming the right of a thinking nonhuman to legal ownership of the creature's own creative work.

The suit relied on a 2004 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that allowed animal-rights supporters to sue on behalf of whales and dolphins in opposing -- unsuccessfully, as it turned out -- Navy sonar testing.

A federal judge in San Francisco, where Slater's book was published, ruled in 2016 that Naruto's surrogates could bring a case in his name, but that the U.S. Copyright Act, as written, applied only to humans. The appeals court agreed Monday, rejecting a challenge from the animal-rights group -- which, in a separate development, has reached a settlement aimed at protecting Naruto's habitat.

``The Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits,'' Judge Carlos Bea said.

PETA noted that courts have allowed corporations, which also are not expressly mentioned in the law, to claim copyrights and sue for violations. But Bea noted that the Supreme Court has upheld corporate claims of free speech and religion, and observed that corporations ``are formed and owned by humans; they are not formed or owned by animals.''

The court issued its ruling despite being urged by both sides in the case to dismiss it after they settled their dispute in September. The settlement recognized Slater as the copyright-holder but required him to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from the selfies to charities that would promote the habitat and well-being of crested macaques in Indonesia. The macaques are classified as critically endangered after years of habitat loss and being hunted for bush meat.

While leaving the settlement undisturbed, Bea took a swipe at PETA, saying the animal-rights group ``seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals.'' He also said the full appeals court should reconsider and overturn the 2004 ruling allowing suits on behalf of animals.

The case is ``the first time an animal will benefit financially from a work of his own creation,'' said PETA's general counsel, Jeff Kerr, referring to the habitat protection. Kerr said the group still maintains that Naruto ``shouldn't be treated any differently than any other photographer just because he doesn't happen to be human.''