Since at least the 1950s, humans have taken an interest in the claimed artistic abilities of animals. Give a primate a paintbrush, and you may get a masterpiece in abstract creativity. Train an elephant to hold a paintbrush in its trunk, and you may even get a self-portrait. But who owns the copyrights to these works of art? Is it the human that owns the animal? Or the human that provides the art supplies? Now we know that it cannot be the artistic animal, said the Northern District of California last month in Naruto v. Slater, Case No. 15-cv-04324-WHO.
The defendants argued that the monkey lacked standing under the Copyright Act, and thus the case should be dismissed. The Court noted that in the few cases dealing with whether animals could bring lawsuits, courts had to examine the statute to determine whether it evidenced congressional intent to confer standing on animals.
Here, there is no mention of animals in the Copyright Act. Further, the Copyright Office expressly stated that works created by animals are not entitled to copyright protection in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. In fact, the Compendium could not be clearer when it specifically gives the following example of works that cannot be registered: “[a] photograph taken by a monkey.” Thus, the Court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the case.
The Court also made clear that animals who want copyright rights are barking up the wrong tree when taking the issue to court:
that is an argument that should be made to Congress and the President, not to me.
Thus, it appears this is one of those rare cases where the works actually are in the public domain from the outset. Two of the Monkey Selfies are posted here, for all to enjoy free of any licensing requirements.