Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

PETA is suing over a monkey’s right to own its selfies

The monkey, using David Slater’s camera

In 2011, wildlife photographer David Slater set up a camera on an Indonesian island. Then a monkey came along and pushed the button on the camera, taking this photograph:

Ever since then, the argument has raged about who, if anyone, owns the copyright to the photo. Slater contends that as the creative force behind the project, he should be considered the author. Critics — including the publishers of Wikipedia — counter that only the person who actually clicked the shutter can be the copyright holder of a photograph. And since that “person” was a monkey, who PETA claims is named Naruto, that means no one owns the photo.

Now the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has seized on the case to strike a blow for animals rights. They are suing Slater and asking the court to declare that the monkey is the rightful owner of the copyright. PETA wants revenues from licensing the photograph put into a fund that would be used for the benefit of this crested macaque monkey and other members of this endangered species living on the island.

PETA is going to face an uphill battle. Copyright law assigns copyrights to “authors,” and doesn’t explicitly say that authors must be human beings. However, the US Copyright Office has long taken the position that the law implicitly requires authors to be human beings. Its guidelines specifically list “a photograph taken by a monkey” as an example of a work not subject to copyright protection, alongside “a mural painted by an elephant.”

The Copyright Office isn’t the final authority on interpreting copyright law, so in principle the courts could overrule this interpretation. But it’s certainly not going to help PETA’s case.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh