Naruto v. Slater - 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018)

Rule:

Animals have neither constitutional nor statutory standing. U.S. Const. art. III standing often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) requires that the suit be brought in the name of the party in interest, and that next friend or guardian representation obtains only for a person. Rule 17(c). Because animals do not possess cognizable interests, it stands to reason that they cannot bring suit in federal court in their own names to protect such interests unless Congress determines otherwise.

Facts:

Naruto was a seven-year-old crested macaque that lived—and may still live—in a reserve on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. In 2011, a wildlife photographer, David Slater, left his camera unattended in the reserve. Naruto allegedly took several photographs of himself (the "Monkey Selfies") with Slater's camera.Slater and Wildlife Personalities, Ltd., ("Wildlife") published the Monkey Selfies in a book that Slater created through Blurb, Inc.'s ("Blurb") website in December 2014. The book identifies Slater and Wildlife as the copyright owners of the Monkey Selfies. However, Slater admits throughout the book that Naruto took the photographs at issue. For example, the book describes one of the Monkey Selfies as follows: "Sulawesi crested black macaque smiles at itself while pressing the shutter button on a camera." Another excerpt from the book describes Naruto as "[p]osing to take its own photograph, unworried by its own reflection, smiling. Surely a sign of self-awareness?" In 2015 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") and Dr. Antje Engelhardt filed a complaint for copyright infringement against Slater, Wildlife, and Blurb, as Next Friends on behalf of Naruto. The complaint alleges that Dr. Engelhardt has studied the crested macaques in Sulawesi, Indonesia for over a decade and has known, monitored, and studied Naruto since his birth. The complaint does not allege any history or relationship between PETA and Naruto. Instead, the complaint alleges that PETA is "the largest animal rights organization in the world" and "has championed establishing the rights and legal protections available to animals beyond their utility to human beings . . . ." Slater, Wildlife, and Blurb filed motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to establish standing under Article III or statutory standing under the Copyright Act. The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The district court concluded that Naruto failed to establish statutory standing under the Copyright Act. PETA and Dr. Engelhardt timely appealed on Naruto's behalf. However, after the appeal was filed, and with the permission of Appellees, Dr. Engelhardt withdrew from the litigation. Therefore, on appeal, only PETA remains to represent Naruto as his "next friend."

Issue:

May a monkey sue humans, corporations, and companies for damages and injunctive relief arising from claims of copyright infringement?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The dismissal of claims brought by Naruto after his "selfies" were published in a book, was proper because, although Naruto’s claim had standing under U.S. Const. art. III, Naruto, along with all animals since they were not human, lacked statutory standing under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 101 et seq.. The Copyright Act did not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits and thus, based on precedent, Naruto lacked statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act.