'Monkey Selfie' Copyright Dispute Has Broad Implications
Steven C. Beer is a New York lawyer who focuses on entertainment and media law at Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo. In the summer 2019 issue of the International Documentary Association publication Documentary magazine, Steven C. Beer tackled the issue of whether the “monkey selfie” dispute means that documentary producers need to pay more attention to copyright ownership of wildlife footage.
The incident in question occurred in Indonesia in 2011, when the Celebes crested macaque Naruto took a number of selfies using the camera of David Slater, a British nature photographer. Without seeking the permission of Slater, photos of the playful monkey taken from newspaper articles were published in Wikimedia Commons.
Arguing that he had made “significant creative contributions” to the monkey selfies through supplying the camera, placing the tripod, and setting the exposure, Slater requested that the photos be removed from the Wikimedia Commons image library. In 2014, the U.S. Copyright Office seconded Wikimedia’s refusal to do so, noting that “copyright cannot vest in non-human authors” and that the photos were considered in the public domain. This decision has been countered by bodies such as the UK Intellectual Property Office, which views ownership as falling to the photographer when “compelling circumstances” exist.
As Mr. Beer describes it, the implications of this case extend to a variety of situations beyond wildlife, including police body cameras and security cameras. Answers related to copyright ownership depend on the nationality of the people involved, the interpretation of copyright laws, and the shoot location.
The incident in question occurred in Indonesia in 2011, when the Celebes crested macaque Naruto took a number of selfies using the camera of David Slater, a British nature photographer. Without seeking the permission of Slater, photos of the playful monkey taken from newspaper articles were published in Wikimedia Commons.
Arguing that he had made “significant creative contributions” to the monkey selfies through supplying the camera, placing the tripod, and setting the exposure, Slater requested that the photos be removed from the Wikimedia Commons image library. In 2014, the U.S. Copyright Office seconded Wikimedia’s refusal to do so, noting that “copyright cannot vest in non-human authors” and that the photos were considered in the public domain. This decision has been countered by bodies such as the UK Intellectual Property Office, which views ownership as falling to the photographer when “compelling circumstances” exist.
As Mr. Beer describes it, the implications of this case extend to a variety of situations beyond wildlife, including police body cameras and security cameras. Answers related to copyright ownership depend on the nationality of the people involved, the interpretation of copyright laws, and the shoot location.
