Source: http://rjg.com/has-copyright-law-gone-bananas-a-look-at-u-s-law-and-the-monkey-selfie/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:04:11+00:00

Document:
People tend to anthropomorphize animals. Whether a pet owner believes their canine can understand a complex conversation, or that their cat created a work of art, humans often give animals the benefit of the doubt that their thoughts and intentions are as complex as ours. Whether or not animals are capable of originality or creativity, it raises the question: can a person claim a copyright in a work created, at least in part, by an animal? This issue has recently become the center of a legal controversy after a wild monkey took several amazing photographs with a professional photographer’s camera.
After the story was originally reported on in July of 20117, Slater published a press release stating that he set up an environment for the pictures to be taken, and intended for the monkeys to take pictures of themselves.8 This raises an interesting question as to whether Slater should own a copyright in the photograph. If Slater intentionally set the stage in the jungle and manipulated the environment for the photographs, United States copyright law precedent may favor the images as copyrightable subject matter.
Article 1, §8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”27 Within the plain language of the law, Burrow-Giles Lithography appeared to have had a valid point: a photograph is not a writing.
The Court concluded that photographs were copyrightable subject matter and that Sarony met the requirements of authorship and originality necessary to hold the exclusive monopoly to the photos.38 This case was significant because it affirmed that photographs were capable of copyright on a constitutional basis. However, the issue of originality still required some legal clarity.
Whether or not judges are qualified to determine the merits of originality in a photograph is subject to debate, however the history of copyright legislation and case law has shown that the law is willing to evolve with modern concepts, and generally only requires marginal standards of originality for a work to be copyrightable. With a basic understanding of copyright law and photography, Slater’s claim to a copyright in the monkey photos may not be as preposterous as the Wikimedia foundation has claimed.
The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices is a document that outlines the rules and interpretations of the U.S. Copyright Office, explicitly states that copyrights require human authorship.52 According to the compendium, works produced by nature, animals, plants, or supernatural beings cannot be copyrighted.53 This document is not binding law per se, however it clearly articulates the Copyright Office’s position on Slater’s predicament. In fact, the compendium lists specific examples of non-copyrightable works.54 Such examples include a photograph taken by a monkey, a mural painted by an elephant, driftwood shaped by the ocean, and claims based on cut marks, defects, or other qualities found in natural stone.55 However, even with the human authorship requirement, Slater could arguably still be the author.
If Slater lacks authorship, then he cannot hold a copyright in the photographs. The varying accounts of the creation of the photos complicate the analysis of whether or not he could be the author for purposes of a copyright. If the original report of events in the news was accurate56 and he had no intention of creating the works, then he would likely not hold a copyright in the photographs. However, Slater’s personal account of the events make a better case for his ability to hold a copyright in the photos, and raises a unique issue: does the act of pressing a button determine who the author is?
Per Slater’s press release, he states to have directly interacted with the monkeys for about a half hour.57 During this time, he anticipated that the monkeys would play with his camera, so he attached a wide-angle lens, flashgun, and a tripod to it.58 He then configured the camera settings and held on to the tripod while letting the monkeys play with the camera.59 This was done with intent to set the stage for up-close photos, should a monkey take any photos.60 Had Slater pressed the button, he certainly would have had the requisite originality and authorship articulated in Sarony and Bleistein.
Based on Slater’s account, he adjusted the lighting, angles, and other specific details necessary to employ his vision as specified in other cases.64 The fact that a monkey pressed the button on his camera should not be dispositive toward whether he can own a copyright in the image. Slater should be considered the author because, without his interactions with the monkeys and equipment adjustments to set the stage for the pictures, there would be no photos.
It could be argued that Slater could not have predicted what the monkey would do with any degree of certainty, and lost control of his vision once the wild animal started playing with his camera. However, courts have held that authors may adopt unintentional variations of an intentionally created works as their own for purposes of authorship.65 For example, a photographer might reactively shake in fear over an unexpected bolt of lightning or the roar of a tiger, thereby altering the intended final product of their shot. In this scenario, the photographer likely holds a copyright in the image.66 If a human can claim authorship in a work unintentionally altered by nature, Slater should still be able to claim authorship.
If the Copyright Office takes the position that Slater cannot be the author because he did not press the button on his camera, it would be incongruent in logic to another crucial component of copyright law. A work made for hire67 vests a copyright in an individual or entity that was not necessarily the actual author of the work itself.68 For example, an employee of Disney might create, develop, and draw a cartoon, but Disney is nonetheless considered the author on the copyright certificate.
The black crested macaque was not, and could not be an employee or agent of Slater because it lacked the capacity to enter into a contract. However, the concept of a work made for hire exemplifies a legal fiction where copyright law is willing to treat a person who is not the actual creator of a work as the author. As a matter of policy, if a wildlife photographer is able to get an animal to aid in his or her photography, they should be able to a copyright in their work, provided the photographer adequately influenced the variables of the environment.
Slater should be considered the author of the photographs regardless of a change in the Copyright Office’s policies. As case law has illustrated, there is no requirement that the author press a button on a camera, but rather that he or she envisioned the photographs and manipulated the environment to create the final work. In an instance where Slater only provided a camera, and the black crested macaque monkey did the rest; there would certainly be no copyright. The facts indicate that Slater contributed more than a mere piece of equipment, though. Assuming Slater met the requisite requirements of originality, he should be entitled to copyright protection in the photographs.
Did Slater’s Photographs Exhibit Originality?
Slater’s work could be original even if it was created unintentionally. If we are to assume that a monkey may not have taken photos in line with Slater’s artistic vision, the independent effort that constitutes originality may be inadvertent and still satisfy the requirements of a copyright.73 If Slater’s contributions to the environment and interaction with monkeys to obtain a photo had even a marginal amount of creativity, and even if the results occurred by accident, a copyright should still exist in the work. Slater’s photos should meet the requirement of originality because of his creative choices in setting up the area and equipment, regardless of whether the black crested macaque’s photographs were intentional, or simply an unintended reaction to stimuli.
Slater meets the requisite elements of authorship and originality necessary for a copyright in the photographs. Slater modified his environment and made the contributions necessary to be construed as the author of the photographs. His work was original because of the marginal requirements necessary for a showing of originality combined with his influence on the independently created photographs.
While the United States Copyright Office appears unwilling to award a copyright in a photograph taken by a monkey according to their internal policy manual, it can still be challenged in court. There is an excellent case to be made that Slater is entitled to a copyright in the photographs taken by the black crested macaque because of his influence and contributions that led to the ultimate creation of the works.
Courts have been unwilling to find originality on certain works as a matter of policy in the past. If Slater were to take his case to court and lose, it may very well be the result of public policy trumping stare decisis. If Wikipedia wins the legal battle over the monkey selfies, professional photographers lose. The idea that an image is not copyrightable because an animal pressed the button is absolutely bananas.
* Daniel Haggarty is a student at Golden Gate University School of Law. He is currently completing his Juris Doctor with a specialization in Intellectual Property. The author would like to express his appreciation to Richard Greenstone for his guidance, input, assistance, and for editing this article.
Cheeky Monkey! Macaque borrows photographer’s camera to take hilarious self-portraits, Daily Mail (Mar. 2, 2014, 10:06 AM), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html.
Sophie J. Evans, Wikipedia rejects photographer’s claim of copyright over famous monkey selfie – on the grounds that the ape took it! Daily Mail (Mar. 2, 2015, 10:15 AM) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718120/Photographer-demands-Wikipedia-remove-famous-photograph-monkeys-selfie.html.
Monkey Selfie – Photographer takes on Goliath, Press Release, DJS Photography (Mar. 2, 2015, 10:20 AM), http://djsphotography.co.uk/Press_Release.zip.
Cheeky Monkey! Macaque borrows photographer’s camera to take hilarious self-portraits, Daily Mail (Mar. 2, 2015, 10:09 AM), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html.
Sulawesi Macaques…, Press Release. DJS Photography (Mar. 2, 2015, 10:22 AM), http://djsphotography.co.uk/Press_Release.zip.
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 1:1 (2014).
William F. Patry, 1 Patry on Copyright § 1:2.
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 1:5-6.
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 1:6.
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 1:5.
U.S. patent application No. 1,582. Alexander S. Wolcott filed a patent for a new and imrpoved method of “taking likenesses from life.” This is recognized as one of the first patents for a camera.
Copyright Enactments, U.S. Copyright Office 35,35 (1973), http://copyright.gov/history/Copyright_Enactments_1783-1973.pdf (explaining the history of photography and U.S. copyright law).
Id. (holding that photographs are capable of copyright under art, § 8 of the United States Constitution).
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 56, 4 S. Ct. 279, 280, 28 L. Ed. 349 (1884).
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250, 23 S. Ct. 298, 300, 47 L. Ed. 460 (1903).
Jewelers’ Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 274 F. 932, 934 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) (holding that virtually all photographs are sufficiently original by virtue of the author’s personal influence.
John W. Hazard Jr. Copyright Law in Business and Practice § 2:59 (rev. ed. 2014) citing Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1626, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1026 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We have stated before that the courts have recognized repeatedly that the creative decisions involved in producing a photograph may render it sufficiently original to be copyrightable and ‘have carefully delineated selection of subject, posture, background, lighting, and perhaps even perspective alone as protectable elements of a photographer’s work.” Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 794, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1626, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1026 (9th Cir. 1992), citing U. S. v. Hamilton, 583 F.2d 448, 452, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 14 (9th Cir. 1978).
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 3:118 (2nd ed. 2014) citing Oriental Art Printing, Inc. v. Goldstar Printing Corp., 175 F. Supp. 2d 542 (S.D. N.Y. 2001).
Oriental Art Printing Inc. v. GS Printing Corp., 34 F. App’x 401 (2d Cir. 2002).
See generally Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1285, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991) (holding that without authorship, there cannot be originality; the constitutional requirements for copyright necessitate an independent creation in addition to a modicum of creativity).
Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices§ 306 (3rd ed. 2014).
Cheeky Monkey! Macaque borrows photographer’s camera to take hilarious self-portraits, Daily Mail (Mar. 2, 2015, 10:25 AM), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html.
Sulawesi Macaques…, Press Release. DJS Photography (Mar. 2, 2015, 10/22 AM), http://djsphotography.co.uk:Press_Release.zip.
Fisher v. Klein, No. 86 CIV. 9522 (PNL), 1990 WL 10072477, (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (holding that in certain situations, an author instructing his creative idea be carried out can establish requisite authorship).
Lindsay v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. TITANIC, No. 97 CIV. 9248 (HB), 1999 WL 816163, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999).
Cf. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 1951) (“A copyists bad eyesight or defective musculature, or a shock caused by a clap of thunder, may yield sufficiently distinguishable variations. Having hit upon such a variation unintentionally, the author may adopt it as his and copyright it.”).
M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.01 (2014).
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1287, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991).

References: §8
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 application No. 1
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v.