Monkey Selfie-Legal Aspects

Background

Picture1

David J. Slater is a British wild life photographer from Gloucestershire who ventured to an Indonesian jungle in 2011 to take photos of extremely rare crested black macaque monkeys. As he narrated the story to the telegraph, he told “They were quite mischievous, jumping all over my equipment and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.”A curious female grabbed his camera and snapped hundreds of shots. The best one out of the image was a selfie by a female macaque grinning toothily into the camera. Mr. Slater eventually retrieved it.

The images made headlines around the world, and were used on a number of websites, newspapers, magazines and television shows. Some of these pictures were posted on Wikimedia Commons[1], where images and videos are offered to the public for free. It was nominated for the best public domain photo on Wikimedia Commons.

In early 2012, Mr Slater officially asked Wikimedia to take down the image. It was removed, but was later added again by another user and has remained on Wikimedia Commons. Mr. Slater contends that he owns the copyright over the said photographs. He further states that he has suffered considerable expense to get these photographs as he traveled into the deep forests of Indonesia and spent three days following the animals with his camera equipment and even hired the guide who led him deep into the wilds, where the inquisitive monkey could grab his camera and start snapping.

He has also argued that he would hold the copyright to any images taken by an assistant. In effect, the smiling simian was his assistant that day in the jungle, he reasoned.

On the images’ discussion page one of the editors who uploaded the photos wrote that “This image was shot by a monkey who picked up a camera that a photographer had dropped” and was therefore not eligible for copyright.

Wikimedia argues that no one owns the photo — not itself, not Mr. Slater and not even the shutter-happy monkey and the image falls into the public domain. Mr. Tomasz Kozlowski, who is responsible for uploading the image to Wikimedia, told the Telegraph: “There has been some confusion over who owns the copyright. As Wikimedia is based in the US, we are guided by their law, which says that works that originate from a non-human source can’t claim copyright. The work did not originate from Mr Slater as by his own admission he did not take the picture, the monkey did. However monkeys can’t and don’t own copyrights.”

“he who takes the selfie owns the selfie”

This legal pseudo-doctrine encompasses two legal terms “authorship” and “taking/capturing”. Technically, there are three parties in this entire episode: a UK wildlife photographer, a US website and an Indonesian macaque. Thus, we have to look in to the Copyright laws on each of these countries to analyze the legal position of the impugned Copyright.

  • Author

Under US Copyright Law, the term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.[2] Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.[3]

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, the copyright in an artistic work such as a photograph is owned by the person who creates it.[4] And, under English law, “person” means human or corporate entity, but does not include animals.

Under Indonesian Copyright laws, the person deemed to be the Author.[5]

Mr. Slater can file a suit for Copyright infringement at of the countries where the photograph has been used without authorization. But none of the countries among UK, US and Indonesia have given recognition to the work created by animal. And it is an undisputed fact that Mr. Slater himself accepted that monkey clicked the picture. Hence, the claim of Wikimedia, that the impugned photograph falls within the ambit of Public domain, is more apt and suitable. It is worth noticing that Indonesia and Britain are the members of Berne and TRIPs conventions and hence, if the suit is filed in UK (as it is most likely) then the impugned photographs will be treated in the same manner as under UK copyright law.

  • Effect of Ownership of Camera

As the general rule of all Copyright law, it is formulated to protect the creators of artistic works and not the owners. The Copyright protection is given for incorporeal property and camera, being a movable property, is a corporeal property. Under US Copyright laws, mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.[6]

Under an earlier copyright law – the UK Copyright Act 1956 – the author of a photograph was defined as the person who at the time the photograph was taken “owned the material on which it was taken but under Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, author, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it[7] and the author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it[8].In the instant case Mr. Slater is neither the author and hence he cannot be termed as owner of copyright under UK copyright laws.

Under Indonesian Copyright law, the strict interpretation of Article 7 read with Article 9 of the Indonesian Copyright Act leads to the conclusion that Indonesian government is the rightful owner of the impugned copyright. Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law inter-alia says that if a work is ‘designed’ by one person and ‘worked out’ by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright. Going by the words of Mr. Slater, it was he who has setup the camera and it was the Macaque who clicked the photographs. In another words, the macaque has done the designing part while Mr. Slater just left his camera.

Further Article 9 inter-alia says if any legal entity claims right in a work without mentioning its author then such legal entity is deemed to be its author unless the contrary is proved. The impugned photographs are shot at Indonesian National Park. Thus, if Indonesian government, being a legal entity, claims the copyright under Article 9, then it would be just and proper under Indonesian Copyright laws unless the contrary is proved.

Image taken by an assistant

In the instant case, Mr.Slater also contended that the Macaque should be considered as the ‘assistant’ of him as Mr.Slater took all the pain behind setting up the perfect conditions for the selfie while the macaque only clicked the shutter. This claim of Mr.Slater would have been successful under the Copyright laws of UK and USA, if there would have existed any written employer-employee agreement or “work made for hire” agreement between them. If one go by the general laws of Agency, then employee is a person and thus an animal cannot hold an agency. A person can be owner of an animal like a bull in a bullock cart but the bull can’t be termed as an Agent.

  • Test of Agency

The best explanation for Cost-Benefit Internalization theory is based on the moral andeconomic principle that a person must bear the foreseeable consequences ofher voluntary actions. Thus, the principal must bear the consequences ofhiring an agent to the extent it is foreseeable that harm might result from theagent’s unauthorized acts.[9] A person may include artificial or natural person but in no way it will include animals. Although, sometimes, the owner of an animal may be held responsible for the act of his animal but won’t amount to agency.

Under UK Copyright laws, if an artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.[10] No agreement can be signed with or by an animal. Thus, an animal cannot be termed as an employee under sec. 11 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and thus Macaque cannot hold the copyright.

  • “Work made for hire” Agreement

Section 101 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code) defines a “work made for hire”. A work made for hire[11] is either

  • a work created by an employee as part of his/her regular duties. A person is an employee if the hiring party has the right to control the manner and means by which the work is created; or
  • a specially commissioned work for certain categories of works and only if there is a written agreement between the employer and employee stating that the work is made for hire.

Thus, under US Copyright law also, an employee is a person. Therefore, a macaque cannot hold a work made for hire agreement under US copyright laws making the claim of Mr.Slater invalid.

Joint work

One possible way out for successfully claiming the copyright under laws of UK, USA and Indonesia might be that it is a joint work. According to the US Copyright Laws[12], the copyright of the work is initially held by the author of the work.The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. Further, Section 101 provides that:

“[a] ‘joint work’ is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole”.

Therefore, in the present case, the court could find that the monkey selfies were works of joint authorship between the macaque and Mr.Slater. This would then allow Mr. Slater to exercise economic rights over the works of joint authorship between human and non-human authors.[13]

  • Liability of Wikimedia

As per, Digital Millennium Copyright Act enacted in 1998 stated that the Internet Service Provider (ISP) cannot be held liable for transmission of copyright infringing content except when such ISP remove such content after a proper notice regarding copyright violation has been received from the copyright owner. It is important to note that this notice unlike other notices must: be in writing, be signed by the copyright owner or the owner’s agent, identify the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed (or list of infringements from the same site) and identify the material that is infringing the work.

Under the UK Copyright law,[14] “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors. In the instant case, both the macaque and Mr.Slater have contributed for the said photograph. The setting up of camera and other instruments weighs as equal importance as clicking the shutter by Macaque. Hence, under UK copyright law, the said photograph can be termed as a work of Joint authorship.

Under Indonesian Copyright Laws[15], author include joint authors who have either inspired in creation of work based on several parameters such as intellectual ability, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise. In the instant case, the dexterity of Mr. Slater cannot be questioned as he is a professional wildlife photographer but the things are not same for Macaque. There is grey area of discussion that whether a macaque possesses intellectual ability, imagination, skill or expertise. Not only that, we all know that macaque may possess skills such as climbing trees but can it be termed as Intellectual ability under Intellectual property laws. Thus, Indonesian law requires interpretation in this area of law.

Conclusion

Though various legal aspects of the case have been brought out and discussed above with reference to laws of respective countries, US copyright regulators have recently interpreted chapter 300 of US Copyright office and issued clarification on the subject matter without specifically mentioning the impugned image that has direct bearing on the case. The clarification in substance means that the subject selfie is not subject to copyright under US Copyright laws. The clarification states that in a classic case of Burrow-Giles Lithograohic Co. vs. Sarony[16], it has been stated that the copyright laws only protects “fruits of intellectual labour” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind”. Because the copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author”, the office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.[17]In the instantcase,work was neither founded nor originated by either of Mr, Slater or Macaque. It may be termed as natural occurrence or better to say an accident. Thus, according to US copyright office, neither Mr.Slater nor macaque used any intellectual labour or creative power in this accidental episode, and therefore neither has claims to the copyright.

References

[1]Wikimedia Commons (or simply Commons) is an online repository of free-use images, sound, and other media files. It is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

[2]Copyright Compendium no.503.03(a)

[3]Copyright Compendium no. 202.02(b)

[4] Section 9, Chapter 48, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[5] Article 5 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia

[6]U.S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress Copyright Basics circular 1 reviewed: 05⁄2012

[7] Section 9, Chapter 48, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[8] Section 11 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[9] “A Theory of Agency Law” by Paula J. Dalley, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University. University of Pittsburg Law Review,        [Vol. 72:495]

[10] Section 11(2) of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

[11] United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress available at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.html

[12]Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. no. 201(a).

[13] “British Photographer, Indonesian Macaque, American Website: Copyright Ownership Dispute Over Monkey Selfies” by Vnzomo in “Strathmore University’s Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law”

[14] Section 10 of of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[15] Article 1(2) LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

[16] 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).

[17] Page 8, Compendium : 300, “Copyrightable Authorship: What cane registered”available at http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf.

About the Author: Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, an intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010