Monkey see, monkey sue — and settles out of court.

Remember that selfie of the grinning monkey that sparked a three-year court fight?

Well, it’s over — pending appeal, that is. 

PETA took wildlife photographer David Slater to court in 2014, on behalf of an Indonesian crested macaque named Naruto. A selfie photo of a grimacing Naruto went viral in 2011 and became a talking point from Indiana to Indonesia.

PETA argued before San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal that Naruto is the legal copyright holder — since he took the photo — and as such is entitled to any proceeds Slater made from future transactions.

©David Slater. Or Naruto the monkey. Not sure which.

Given Slater’s court costs — he’s a self-employed nature photographer, after all, not a Wall Street banker — that was never going to amount to much.

As it is, Slater told everyone from the BBC to the Daily Telegraph that the case has driven him to the brink of bankruptcy, even though, to most eyes, the case is bafffling, not to mention bananas.

PETA has argued that, under US copyright law, the person who takes a picture is the copyright owner, even if, as happened in this case, Slater who flew to Indonesia, provided the camera and set up the shot. Slater later included the resulting image in a book of his wildlife pictures, published by Blurb Inc.

Not wanting to leave anyone out of the frame, PETA also named Blurb as a defendant in its suit.

Now, word comes that the two parties have agreed to a settlement, one they both profess to be being happy about but will likely please no one, least of all the monkey.

Ironically — though not surprisingly — the photo in question is appearing all over again, all over the world, from Indiana to Indonesia, even though neither PETA nor Slater stand to get rich from the notoriety. One online publication has credited the infamous photo as, “Copyright David Slater. Or Naruto the monkey. Not sure which.”

Slater, 52, is from South Wales. And if you’re wondering why a San Francisco court got involved in a case involving a macaque from Indonesia and a photographer from the UK, well, you’re not alone. US copyright law extends the world over, evidently.

“It is absurd that a monkey can sue for copyright infringement in court,” Angela Dunning, Slater’s co-counsel and in-house attorney for Blurb, told the appeals court in July.

“Naruto can’t benefit financially from his work,” Dunning added. “He is a monkey.”

Court judge Carlos Bea asked at the outset why the case shouldn’t be tossed, on principle. He asked if anyone, inside or outside the courtroom, can point to any case law which specifically states thatman and monkey are equal in the eyes of the law.

Bea also wondered aloud whether PETA had “sufficient relationship” with Naruto to represent themselves in the legal capacity of “next friend.”

With friends like this, who needs enemies, the dispassionate observer might well ask.

The monkey business came to an end Friday when PETA gave up its appeal, as dutifully reported by the insider website law.com.

Details of the settlement were announced Monday, though not in full.

There was no mention of court costs, for example, or attorney fees, which the near-bankrupt Slater hoped to recover.

Instead, the two parties issued a joint statement, in which PETA and Slater agreed that the case raises “important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals.”

Slater insisted from the beginning that he wants his wildlife photos to highlight the plight of endangered species around the world. 

As part of the settlement, then Slater agreed to pay 25 percent of future gross revenues from the monkey selfies to a range of non-governmental organizations dedicated to preserving the macaque’s natural habitat in Indonesia.

It’s hard to judge whether any legal precedent was set by a court case that captured the imagination of headline writers the world over.

In the end, the two parties couldn’t even agree on what gender the monkey was. Or is.

PETA claimed Naruto is a female well-known to park custodians in that region of Indonesia; Slater argued it’s a different monkey altogether, and a male at that.

For the record, court documents referred to Naruto throughout the trial as a male.

Meanwhile, the all-important question — what would the monkey have done with the money if he were human? — will have to go unanswered. For now.

http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/09/11/monkey-authors-will-have-to-wait-another-day-for-copyrights/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/legal-arguments-monkey-selfie-case-are-bananas-at-hearing-1020376

---

Monkey see, monkey sue.

Monkey sues man! How is this a thing?

Of all the court cases in all the world, this is perhaps the oddest, the weirdest, the most bizarre.

An Indonesian macaque monkey is suing a British freelance photographer over the copyright of a “selfie” picture the monkey snapped, using a camera placed by Monmouthshire, UK photographer David Slater. The image, naturally, went viral.

©AP

Slater, who like most freelance photographers, struggles to make ends meet, was counting on royalties from the image to pay for at least part of his trip to Indonesia.

Animal-rights activists, fed up with what they see as the constant and relentless exploitation of animals in their natural habitat, filed suit in a California state court, insisting that all financial and monetary gains from the image should go to the ‘person’ who clicked the shutter and thereby took the picture — i.e. the monkey — and not the freelancer, who they say merely provided the means by which the photo was taken.

A lower court ruled that copyright protection cannot be applied to a monkey. The animal-rights group PETA disagreed, and filed an appeal with the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in San Francisco, Calif.

And there the case stands.

Testimony in the case was read in court this past week, and details were duly reported by mainstream media outlets, including — but not limited to — the Daily Telegraph, BBC World, de Volkskrant, ABC News, USA Today, Sky News Australia, the Guardian and, well, Maxim magazine. 

Slater estimates he has already lost out on tens of thousands of dollars in rights fees for an image that has gone viral, both on the internet, where hardly anyone pays for anything, and in respected, high-profile periodicals that, in theory anyway, pay copyright holders for the use of widely sought-after images.

The whole thing sounds silly — and, in a way, it is — but there’s method behind PETA’s legal madness. 

If the appeal court finds for the monkey, a legal precedent will be set. There may be a time in the not-too-distant future when wildlife conservancies, nature reserves and national parks will be legally entitled to a percentage of the proceeds from wildlife images taken within their boundaries, in the same way most zoos now control what for-profit photos may or may not be taken on their premises.

It’s easy to make light of the case — the image itself is on the wacky side, and so difficult to take seriously — and mainstream media outlets have hada good time watching claimants in the case go, well, bananas.

©Chris Slater/Caters News Agency

Slater himself, however, feels hurt. As a freelance photographer, he struggles to make ends meet at the best of times. And he has a point when he says — as he did this past week to the BBC — that PETA must have better things on which to spend the money it receives from well-meaning donors than taking on a penniless photographer with a family to support.

Slater is so strapped for cash he couldn’t fly to California to testify in person this past week. (One might reasonably ask how a California court has jurisdiction over a case involving a UK photographer over a photo that was taken in Indonesia, by a resident, if you will, of Indonesia, but that’s a whole other matter.)

©David Slater/Caters News Agency

Slater argued in absentia that there was more to taking the image than simply handing a troupe of monkeys a camera and seeing what might come of it.  He insisted that it took time and perseverance over a period of several days to get the selfie in question, along with other photos. If nothing else, it took days, weeks even, to earn the monkeys’ trust. The time he put in was, by itself, enough to earn him the claim of copyright ownership, he argues.

Weirdly — everything about this, um, tale is weird —  PETA needed a name for the purposes of their lawsuit, so they named the macaque ‘Naruto,’ for the purposes of court documents. (The case is officially filed as ‘Naruto v David Slater.’) Naruto is a female name, however; Slater insists the monkey in the selfie is a male. In other words, he says, he isn’t even being sued by the right monkey.

Slater sees himself as a conservationist first, andwildlife photographer second. Interest in the image has already helped highlight the plight of Indonesia’s dwindling rainforests — and the animals that live within — around the world.

©David Slater/Caters News Agency

He’s upset because he will be in serious financial trouble if he loses the case, and yet PETA insists any proceeds it will get from the case will go towards protecting monkeys and their natural habitat. BBC News reported that PETA would not say how much money it has spent on the case so far, but did say the group is acting on the macaque’s behalf.

PETA is arguing that, given the circumstances under which the picture was taken, the monkey is the sole copyright holder, “and PETA is proud to be his voice in court.”

PETA’s legal argument rests on the fact that, in the organization’s eyes, it was the monkey, not Slater, who “made the cause-and-effect connection between pressing the shutter and the change to his reflection in the camera lens, resulting in (the) now-famous selfie photographs.”

‘Now-famous’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.

The case won’t be settled any time soon, by the way. 

The appeal court’s decision isn’t expected for months.

And, yes, this is really happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater

---