Monkey Does not Own Right to Selfie

Over in the US, some people actually filed a case in Court to argue that a wild monkey in the jungle owns the copyright to a selfie that it took with a camera that wasn't even its own. This is how it was reported by the TweenTribune.

A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos. That is what a federal judge has ruled.
 
U.S. District Judge William Orrick made the ruling in San Francisco.
 
The lawsuit was filed last year by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  It sought a court order allowing PETA to represent the monkey.  PETA wanted the court to let it administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, 6-year-old Naruto. It also would go to other crested macaques living in a reserve. They live on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

 
The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi. An unattended camera was used to snap the images. The camera is owned by British nature photographer David Slater.  He asked the court to dismiss the case. Slater said the British copyright obtained for the photos by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honored worldwide.
 
PETA sued Slater and his San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb.  The company published a book called "Wildlife Personalities." The book includes the "monkey selfie" photos.
 
The photos have been widely distributed elsewhere. The distributing outlets include Wikipedia.  Those outlets contend that no one owns the copyright to the images.  They say that's because they were taken by an animal, not a person.
 
In court documents, Slater described himself as a nature photographer.  He said he is deeply concerned about animal welfare.  He said it should up to the U.S. Congress and not a federal court to decide whether copyright law applies to animals.
 
Jeff Kerr is general counsel for PETA.  The organization will continue fighting for the monkey's rights, he said.
"Despite this setback, legal history was made today," Kerr said. "Because we argued to a federal court why Naruto should be the owner of the copyright rather than being seen as a piece of property himself.  This case is also exposing the hypocrisy of those who exploit animals for their own gain."