Published on 27th June 2025
Authored By: Vedha Hiren Daga
Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
The Naruto v. Slater case, an unusual legal muddle also referred to as the “Monkey Selfie Case,” revolves around a series of fascinating photographs snapped by Naruto, a crested black macaque monkey, and the ensuing copyright dispute that followed. In 2011, wildlife photographer David Slater traveled to Sulawesi, Indonesia, with the intent of taking photographs of these native macaques in their habitat. While he was there, Slater had established his camera equipment, which consisted of a tripod and a camera. In a turn of events, Naruto showed keen interest in the equipment and started playing with it. Playing with the equipment resulted in Naruto pressing the shutter button on the camera several times, resulting in a series of photographs, one of which is a series of self-portraits that were in the limelight globally as “monkey selfies.”. The critical legal question in the case arose with the issue of who owned the copyright.
Slater claimed his right to the copyright, contending that he owned the camera and had composed the shot and therefore had the right. To this, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a rights organization for animals, brought a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, arguing that since physically taking the photos, Naruto was the rightful author and therefore entitled to the copyright.
The argument by PETA countered the conventional understanding of the law of copyright, proposing the application of copyright protection to non-human authors. They also maintained that the photo proceeds must be applied to Naruto’s advantage and the preservation of his kind. The litigation raised sophisticated issues about the meaning of “authorship” in the context of copyright law. The United States Copyright Act, similar to the copyright legislation of most countries, generally assumes that an “author” is a human individual.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, where the trial took place, rejected PETA’s arguments that animals cannot be considered authors for the purposes of the Copyright Act. The court’s decision was based on its interpretation of the Act, which focuses on human creation and does not apply copyright protection to works created by non-human beings. PETA appealed this decision, but the appeal was settled between PETA and Slater. Slater, as part of the settlement, committed to give twenty-five percent of any profits made in the future from the photographs to charities committed to the protection of macaques in Indonesia. In exchange, PETA committed to dismiss the lawsuit. Although the settlement did occur, the ruling of the court that animals cannot be the owners of copyrights is an important legal precedent. The Naruto v. Slater case thus holds a level of importance that goes beyond its unusual facts. It has served to heighten awareness of the intricate problems involving animal rights, the legal and philosophical concepts of authorship, and the problems that arise in implementing established legal regimes, like copyright law, in unusual circumstances involving non-human creativity.
The central problem in the Naruto v. Slater case is one of authorship and copyright ownership in the case of photographs shot by a non-human animal.
The case stemmed from a set of photographs, including “selfies,” snapped by a crested black macaque monkey named Naruto using a camera belonging to wildlife photographer David Slater. Although Slater maintained copyright ownership due to his ownership of the camera and the facts surrounding the photographs, PETA contended that Naruto, since he was physically taking the images, is essentially the rightful author and copyright owner. This was in contradiction with the conventional definition of authorship that, under the U.S. Copyright Act and comparable legislation in other nations, is usually reserved for human authors.
The court’s decision in favor of PETA was based on the meaning of the Copyright Act, specifically its definition of who is an “author.” The court concluded that the Act does not give copyright protection to works by non-human animals. This ruling called into question the limits of copyright law and whether legal systems must change to recognize creative actions by non-human agents.
Finally, the Naruto v. Slater case resulted in a grappling with the constraint of current definitions of authorship in law and prompted a general discussion regarding animals’ rights as well as just how far into recognizing and sheltering the work of non-humans law systems should attempt to reach.
The Naruto v. Slater case, an intriguing and intricate legal controversy originating from a series of photographs captured by a crested black macaque monkey by the name of Naruto, is a compelling example of the rapidly developing challenges at the nexus of law, technology, and animal rights, compelling a re-evaluation of core principles like authorship and copyright. The event that ignited this courtroom drama took place in 2011 when nature photographer David Slater traveled to Sulawesi, Indonesia, with the aim of photographing the lives of these unusual primates. Slater arranged his photography gear, including a camera attached to a tripod, to shoot pictures of the macaques within their environment. But in an unexpected twist, Naruto, one curious male macaque, started to engage with the camera. This was not a matter of mere observation; Naruto actively used the device, triggering the shutter button on several occasions, to create a series of photographs that contained a number of self-portraits that were later referred to internationally as the “monkey selfies.”. These photographs, which reflected Naruto’s seeming self-awareness and creative control, soon became popular and were shared throughout the internet, sparking a hot debate regarding the copyright ownership of these strange photos. Slater claimed ownership of the copyright, stating that his possession of the camera and the situation that resulted in the taking of the photos made him the rightful owner of the rights. He argued that his arrangement of the equipment and the general environment of the photographic expedition were essential elements in the making of the images. But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization with a record of fighting to extend legal rights to animals, had another approach. PETA, representing Naruto, sued Slater on the basis that Naruto, being the creature who physically made the photographs, was the authentic author and, as such, the copyright owner of the images. PETA’s position was based on the ethical postulate that copyright protection should be extended to the author of a work, irrespective of species, thus critiquing the conventional anthropocentric conception of authorship that has pervasively characterized copyright law. This radical presumption attempted to redefine the limits of authorship and grant legal status to non-human beings’ creative activities. The case raised new and complex legal issues regarding the interpretation of copyright law, most notably the doctrine of “authorship”. The United States Copyright Act, as with the copyright laws of most other nations, has conventionally assumed that an “author” is a human person, as a cultural and historical bias to recognize human creativity as the central source of intellectual property rights. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where the case was first heard, concluded against PETA’s arguments on the grounds that animals cannot qualify as “authors” under the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court decision was solidly based on language and intent expressed in the Act, which the court held indisputably laid stress on creation by human hands and did not grant copyright coverage to works born of non-humans. This ruling upheld the dominant legal position that copyright law exists for the purpose of safeguarding human intellectual and artistic work, making it practically impossible to recognize acts of creativity on the part of animals. PETA was unhappy with this decision and appealed it, further pursuing legal rights for animals in the context of copyright. However, while the appeal was pending, PETA and Slater reached a settlement, bringing an end to the legal battle. According to the terms of the settlement, Slater agreed to donate twenty-five percent of any future profits derived from the photographs to charities dedicated to the protection of Naruto and his fellow crested black macaques in Indonesia. In return for this commitment, PETA agreed to drop the lawsuit. Even with this resolution, the court’s underlying legal finding that animals are not capable of owning copyrights was a major precedent, influencing subsequent interpretations of copyright law and its application to creations by non-humans. The Naruto v. Slater case thus has an importance that goes far beyond its apparently bizarre set of facts. It has raised higher profiles for the sophisticated and frequently divisive questions surrounding animal rights, changing legal and philosophical conceptions of authorship, and the inevitable difficulties of attempting to apply current legal concepts, like copyright law, to non-traditional circumstances involving non-human creativity and agency. The case has occasioned wider discussions of the necessity for legal systems to evolve in response to new scientific understandings of animal cognition and behavior, and it continues to invite attention to the ethical and legal dimensions of acknowledging animals as potential authors and rights-bearers.
