Case Summary
**Case Summary: Naruto v. David Slater, Docket No. 6089894**
**Court**: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date**: The case was decided on April 25, 2018.
**Background**:
This case centers around a famous viral photograph of a monkey named Naruto, who took a selfie with David Slater's camera in 2011 while Slater was conducting a photo shoot in Indonesia. Slater subsequently published the photograph, which gained enormous popularity, leading to a debate about the ownership of the image and copyright laws.
**Plaintiff**: Naruto (represented by PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
**Defendant**: David Slater
**Issues**:
The primary legal issues involved in this case were:
1. Whether animals can own copyright.
2. Whether Slater, as the photographer, held copyright over the selfie taken by Naruto and whether he had the right to profit from it.
**Arguments**:
- **Plaintiff (PETA)**: PETA argued that Naruto, as the subject of the photograph and an intelligent being, should have the rights to his image and benefits derived from it. They claimed that the law should recognize that animals have rights to their likenesses and should be able to own copyright.
- **Defendant (David Slater)**: Slater contended that he, as the human who set up the camera and was responsible for the photograph being taken, held the copyright to the image. He argued that the copyright laws are designed for human creators and that animals cannot own property or copyrights.
**Decision**:
The court ultimately ruled in favor of David Slater, affirming that copyright law does not recognize animals as legal entities capable of holding copyrights. The Ninth Circuit stated that while the selfie became a popular subject for debate, the legal framework surrounding copyright ownership explicitly pertains to human creators.
**Conclusion**:
The case has sparked extensive discussions on animal rights, intellectual property, and the implications of technology in the digital age. It raised questions about the evolution of copyright law as it relates to non-human entities and sheds light on the broader debate of ethics regarding animals and their treatment in various contexts.
This case serves as a notable reference point in understanding copyright ownership and the intersection of technology and animal rights.