Naruto the monkey lacks statutory standing

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? U.S.

Naruto v. David John Slater: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/monkey-selfie-opinion.pdf

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Naruto, an Indonesian macaque who took "selfies" using photographer David John Slater's camera, has constitutional standing to sue but does not have statutory standing to claim copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

In 2011, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), acting on behalf of Naruto the monkey, filed a copyright infringement claim against David Slater over Slater's use of Naruto's selfies in his photography book. Although PETA and Slater reached an earlier agreement - whereby Slater agreed to donate 25% of all revenue earned by his book to charities protecting Naruto's Indonesian habitat - the Court just issued their Opinion.

The Court found that the Copyright Act does not provide animals with statutory standing to sue for copyright infringement. The Court held that Naruto cannot sue over the unauthorized use of the photos he took of himself.

Other artwork created by animals has led to questions over who owns the copyrights in the resulting works. It is apparently not the animals who created the works.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Wow, a reasonable decision out of the 9th.

Had they not ruled this way any photo from a camera not controlled by a photographer would be in question. Example, a game camera that takes pictures when a deer or other game moves into view. The copyright holder would be the deer.

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? U.S.

Naruto v. David John Slater: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/monkey-selfie-opinion.pdf

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Naruto, an Indonesian macaque who took "selfies" using photographer David John Slater's camera, has constitutional standing to sue but does not have statutory standing to claim copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

In 2011, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), acting on behalf of Naruto the monkey, filed a copyright infringement claim against David Slater over Slater's use of Naruto's selfies in his photography book. Although PETA and Slater reached an earlier agreement - whereby Slater agreed to donate 25% of all revenue earned by his book to charities protecting Naruto's Indonesian habitat - the Court just issued their Opinion.

The Court found that the Copyright Act does not provide animals with statutory standing to sue for copyright infringement. The Court held that Naruto does not hold the copyrights in the photos he took of himself.

Other artwork created by animals has led to questions over who owns the copyrights in the resulting works. It is apparently not the animals who created the works.

It isn’t a matter of who created the work. In the naruto situation it is obvious who created the work: naruto. The decision stated the law does not give rights to animals but only to humans and as such could not assign ownership to the monkey.


A couple questions to you Quincy;

If I own a camera and if I set it down and Joe Schmoe picks it up (without permission) and takes a selfie (of himself obviously); who owns the copyrights?

What if Joe Schmoe did the same but took a picture of a landscape, presuming there was no proof other than Joe Schmoe’s claim he took the picture?

 

[quincy]

Wow, a reasonable decision out of the 9th.

Had they not ruled this way any photo from a camera not controlled by a photographer would be in question. Example, a game camera that takes pictures when a deer or other game moves into view. The copyright holder would be the deer.

I think it is an interesting decision.

Naruto would hold the copyrights in his selfies if he were human (absent a work-for-hire or other contractual agreement) so the decision from the Ninth in some ways seems contrary to the law.

I hope the decision does not lead to a proliferation of animal art (e.g., animal labor camps ).

Joe Schmoe would own the copyrights in the photos he took, absent an agreement to the contrary (unless Joe Schmoe is an animal).

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It isn’t a matter of who created the work. In the naruto situation it is obvious who created the work: naruto. The decision stated the law does not give rights to animals but only to humans and as such could not assign ownership to the monkey.


A couple questions to you Quincy;

If I own a camera and if I set it down and Joe Schmoe picks it up (without permission) and takes a selfie (of himself obviously); who owns the copyrights?

What if Joe Schmoe did the same but took a picture of a landscape, presuming there was no proof other than Joe Schmoe’s claim he took the picture?

Would Joe? This case doesn't speak to that. It only speaks to the lack standing because of the monkey wasn't a human.

What if the photographer was sitting the camera out as an art project specifically to see what they would do with a camera?

 

[justalayman]

Wow, a reasonable decision out of the 9th.

Had they not ruled this way any photo from a camera not controlled by a photographer would be in question. Example, a game camera that takes pictures when a deer or other game moves into view. The copyright holder would be the deer.

Not the same situation. With a game camera the owner of the camera maintained control of the camera. He effectively took the picture of the deer. In the Naruto situation the monkey actually took control of the camera and used it to take a picture

 

[justalayman]

Would Joe? This case doesn't speak to that. It only speaks to the lack standing because of the monkey wasn't a human.

What if the photographer was sitting the camera out as an art project specifically to see what they would do with a camera?

I know it doesn’t speak to my Joe situation. It was an independent question I posed.

I am interested in Quincy’s response to your question though. On one hand the work was created due to the camera owner’s acts but more specifically the individual person is the actual creator. Good question.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Not the same situation. With a game camera the owner of the camera maintained control of the camera. He effectively took the picture of the deer. In the Naruto situation the monkey actually took control of the camera and used it to take a picture

With the type of game camera I am talking about is one that takes a photo when it detects movement. The movement in my example would be of the deer. I doubt it could be proven that the monkey knew any more that it was taking a photograph than a deer would when walking through the woods.

 

[quincy]

With the type of game camera I am talking about is one that takes a photo when it detects movement. The movement in my example would be of the deer. I doubt it could be proven that the monkey knew any more that it was taking a photograph than a deer would when walking through the woods.

The photographer in the cameras set up to detect movement would be the copyright holder of any images captured. Those who set off the camera are the subjects of the photos only.

If someone finds a camera and takes a picture using the camera, the copyrights in the resulting photos belong to the photographer, not the owner of the camera.

 

[justalayman]

With the type of game camera I am talking about is one that takes a photo when it detects movement. The movement in my example would be of the deer. I doubt it could be proven that the monkey knew any more that it was taking a photograph than a deer would when walking through the woods.

I know what a game or more often called a trail camera is. I have one sitting 5 feet away from me at the moment.

It doesn’t change my statement. The owner of the camera is still the one who effectively took the picture. Walking passed a camera that is activated by motion does not make the subject of the image to be considered to be in control of the camera

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? U.S.

Naruto v. David John Slater: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/monkey-selfie-opinion.pdf

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Naruto, an Indonesian macaque who took "selfies" using photographer David John Slater's camera, has constitutional standing to sue but does not have statutory standing to claim copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

In 2011, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), acting on behalf of Naruto the monkey, filed a copyright infringement claim against David Slater over Slater's use of Naruto's selfies in his photography book. Although PETA and Slater reached an earlier agreement - whereby Slater agreed to donate 25% of all revenue earned by his book to charities protecting Naruto's Indonesian habitat - the Court just issued their Opinion.

The Court found that the Copyright Act does not provide animals with statutory standing to sue for copyright infringement. The Court held that Naruto does not hold the copyrights in the photos he took of himself.

Other artwork created by animals has led to questions over who owns the copyrights in the resulting works. It is apparently not the animals who created the works.

Naruto is not a US citizen, nor is he located in the US, nor were the photos created in the US. Not sure how they figured out he had a 'constitutional standing' to sue.

Another goofy decision from the 9th Court.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I know what a game or more often called a trail camera is. I have one sitting 5 feet away from me at the moment.

It doesn’t change my statement. The owner of the camera is still the one who effectively took the picture. Walking passed a camera that is activated by motion does not make the subject of the image to be considered to be in control of the camera

I agree. Just like I agree that the monkey wasn't the photographer.

 

[quincy]

Naruto is not a US citizen, nor is he located in the US, nor were the photos created in the US. Not sure how they figured out he had a 'constitutional standing' to sue.

Another goofy decision from the 9th Court.

The alleged copyright infringement occurred in the U.S.

And the monkey WAS the photographer. He took a picture of himself. No one has disputed the fact that the monkey was the photographer.

Who owns the camera or camera equipment only becomes one of the factors considered when deciding work-for-hires.

 

[justalayman]

I agree. Just like I agree that the monkey wasn't the photographer.

I’m not sure who you are agreeing with but the fact is, the monkey is the photographer. The decision states the copyright laws do not give rights of ownership to animals therefor there is no choice but for ownership to default to the owner of the camera. If it was a human rather than a monkey, the rights would belong to whomever pushed the button to take the picture. It is only because the photographer is an animal (and the copyright laws do not acknowledge an animal has standing to claim ownership ) did the court determine ownership of the rights belong to the owner of the camera.

 

[TheGeekess]

The alleged copyright infringement occurred in the U.S.

I'm just glad that it's not going to the SCOTUS. That would indeed be a waste of the Court's time.

(Sorry, q, just shaking my head over here at PETA and the 9th Circuit; however, I have a hard time taking them serious since some of the judges have decided that they can rule by fiat, nevermind what the Constitution says).