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
Anthropic just made AI scarierAnthropic just made AI scarier
Podcast
Podcasts

Why the company’s new AI model is a cybersecurity nightmare.

By Dustin DeSoto and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track youThe Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you
Politics

Chatrie v. United States asks what limits the Constitution places on the surveillance state in an age of cellphones.

By Ian Millhiser
Future Perfect
The simple question that could change your careerThe simple question that could change your career
Future Perfect

Making a difference in the world doesn’t require changing your job.

By Bryan Walsh
Technology
The case for AI realismThe case for AI realism
Technology

AI isn’t going to be the end of the world — no matter what this documentary sometimes argues.

By Shayna Korol
Politics
OpenAI’s oddly socialist, wildly hypocritical new economic agendaOpenAI’s oddly socialist, wildly hypocritical new economic agenda
Politics

The AI company released a set of highly progressive policy ideas. There’s just one small problem.

By Eric Levitz
Future Perfect
Human bodies aren’t ready to travel to Mars. Space medicine can help.Human bodies aren’t ready to travel to Mars. Space medicine can help.
Future Perfect

Protecting astronauts in space — and maybe even Mars — will help transform health on Earth.

By Shayna Korol