A US appeals court has favoured humans over animals in a copyright lawsuit filed over a series of selfies taken by a monkey.
US copyright law does not allow lawsuits that seek to give animals the rights to photographs or other original work, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Copyright infringement can only be claimed on behalf of humans, the court said.
The unanimous, three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) against a UK-based photographer whose camera was used by a crested macaque to take the photos in 2011.
Peta’s 2015 suit against wildlife photographer David Slater sought financial control of the photographs – including a now-famous selfie of the monkey grinning – for the benefit of the animal named Naruto.
Jeff Kerr, general counsel for Peta, said the group was reviewing the opinion and had not decided yet whether it would appeal.
“Naruto should be considered the author and copyright owner, and he shouldn’t be treated any differently from any other creator simply because he happens to not be human,” Kerr said.
The problem, however, is that copyright law did not “expressly authorise animals to file copyright infringement suits”, 9th Circuit Judge Carlos Bea said in the ruling.
The judge said the law reserved that power only for humans.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here