Another monkey has now taken on the burden of achieving personhood: Naruto the macaque. Reuters reports on the PETA-led lawsuit:
A rare crested macaque monkey who snapped a well-known, grinning “selfie” should be declared the photo’s owner and receive damages for copyright infringement after it was used in a wildlife book, animal rights activists argued in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday.
Naruto, a six-year-old macaque who lives free in the Tangkoko Reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, took the image and several others about four years ago using a camera left unattended by British photographer David Slater, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said in the suit.
The so-called Monkey Selfies that resulted came from “a series of purposeful and voluntary actions by Naruto, unaided by Slater,” said the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
From the PETA blog:
Why is this so important, and what does it all mean? If this lawsuit succeeds, it will be the first time that a nonhuman animal is declared the owner of property (the copyright of the “monkey selfie”), rather than being declared a piece of property himself or herself. It will also be the first time that a right is extended to a nonhuman animal beyond just the mere basic necessities of food, shelter, water, and veterinary care. In our view, it is high time.
We are also asking the court to allow PETA to administer the proceeds of “monkey selfie” sales for the benefit of Naruto and his community, without compensation to PETA.
This case exemplifies what PETA has championed for 35 years: Animals deserve recognition of appropriate rights for their own sake, and not in relation to their exploitation by humans.
I’m curious how ‘appropriate’ is defined in this context.
Heavy weighs in with a number of points, such as this:
Wikimedia Commons then added the photo as part of its public domain repository. Slater sent Wikimedia a DMCA takedown notice, Motherboard reported, and Wikimedia declined because the money took the photo. If anyone owned the photo, Wikimedia explained, it was the monkey. However, monkeys can’t own copyrights so the photo was public domain. Slater threatened to sue, but the photo ended up staying in public domain. Slater, meanwhile, felt that is British copyright on the photo should be honored worldwide.
Did Naruto have an expectation of the result of pushing the button?
Suppose someone (human) stole a camera and took a picture – would they own the copyright on the picture? Or the owner of the camera? PetaPixel claims it’s the operator:
“The act grants copyright to authors of original works, with no limit on species,” PETA lawyer Jeffrey Kerr tells the Associated Press. “Copyright law is clear: It’s not the person who owns the camera, it’s the being who took the photograph.”
So the ownership of the mechanism of capturing the picture is unimportant. Not sure I’d be happy with that thought if I were the owner of the camera.
The Passive Voice blog has an interview with PETA‘s lawyer. Barbara King @ 13.7 cosmos & culture, the NPR blog, also talked to the PETA general counsel:
PETA General Counsel Jeff Kerr told me in an email Tuesday that when we are dealing with intelligent and intentional animals, like these macaques, species membership should not be the deciding factor in copyright law.
That the photographs Naruto took resulted from a thoughtful, intentional series of actions fits perfectly well with what we anthropologists know of monkey intelligence. Macaques — all species of macaques, including Naruto’s — sort out complex kin and dominance-rank relationships in their groups and take part in what primate scientists call political maneuvering. They learn from each other and pay close attention to what goes on in both their social and their physical environments. Our knowledge about monkeys leaves no question that they act with purpose and intention every single day.
So do we suppose that the macaques understand that clicking that button would end up with a picture contained in electronics? On the other end of the spectrum, which animals do not show intentionality? Or, to quote Heinlein in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,
“Soul?” Does a dog have a soul? How about cockroach? [Chapter 1 para 7]
I’m actually more or less concerned that my understanding of the jargon at this juncture is inadequate to the task.
FixThisNation.com does not appreciate PETA’s sentiments:
You can’t find fifteen liberals to take a stand against Planned Parenthood, but when it comes to the rights of photography-inclined monkeys, watch out. The domestic terrorism organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a lawsuit this week in federal court on behalf of Naruto the monkey, claiming he owns the copyright on “selfies” he took in 2011.
Do you ever wonder if you slipped into a comedic tragedy at some point? Like, surely this isn’t the real world, is it? Back on Original Earth, they’re facing serious issues, promoting common sense, and living in harmony with logic. Here on Bizzaro Earth, they’re arguing that boys can be girls, unborn humans aren’t humans, and monkeys are basically just people with alternative lifestyles.
There is a certain unintentional irony in FixThisNation‘s remarks in their citing Planned Parenthood, an organization apparently under continual slander by Fiorina, et al, while claiming they’re from Original Earth …
I’ve noticed that no one has addressed the question of whether Naruto is subject to protection, seeing as it (there’s some controversy over the macaque’s gender) lives in Indonesia, not the USA. I personally have a gut reaction that, since the macaque probably does not understand that pushing that button will take a picture, the suit will be lost. I remember the phenomenon of elephants painting, but Snopes.com is on the case and notes scientists do not believe the elephants comprehend their actions in any classic sense:
So are these endearing mammals truly artistic? The answer, as politicians are fond of saying, is yes and no.
Let me describe exactly what happens. A painting session begins with three heavy easels being wheeled into position. On each easel a large piece of white card (30in x 20in) has been fixed underneath a strong wooden frame.
Each elephant is positioned in front of her easel and is given a brush loaded with paint by her mahout. He pushes the brush gently into the end of her trunk.
The man then stands to one side of his animal’s neck and watches intently as the brush starts to make lines on the card. Then the empty brush is replaced by another loaded one, and the painting continues until the picture is complete.
The elephant then turns towards its audience, bows deeply and is rewarded with bananas.
The paintings are then removed from their frames and offered for sale. They are quickly snapped up by people who have been astonished by what they have just witnessed.
To most of the members of the audience, what they have seen appears to be almost miraculous. Elephants must surely be almost human in intelligence if they can paint pictures of flowers and trees in this way. What the audience overlooks are the actions of the mahouts as their animals are at work.
This oversight is understandable because it is difficult to drag your eyes away from the brushes that are making the lines and spots. However, if you do so, you will notice that, with each mark, the mahout tugs at his elephant’s ear.
He nudges it up and down to get the animal to make a vertical line, or pulls it sideways to get a horizontal one. To encourage spots and blobs he tugs the ear forward, towards the canvas. So, very sadly, the design the elephant is making is not hers but his. There is no elephantine invention, no creativity, just slavish copying.
(h/t William Cloose)
