Slater, on the other hand, argued that Naruto couldnвЂ™t own the copyright as he is a monkey. PETA argued that publishing the photo infringed on NarutoвЂ™s rights under US copyright law. This didnвЂ™t stop People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) initiating a copyright suit in 2015, after Slater used one of the self-portraits in a photography book he published, вЂњWildlife PersonalitiesвЂќ. In 2014, the United States Copyright Office clarified the issue by releasing a statement on copyrightable authorship that confirmed that вЂњ The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants A photograph taken by a monkey.вЂќ

When Slater requested that the photo be taken down because he owns the copyright to it, Wikipedia argued that since it was taken by an animal, then it is uncopyrightable. The image of NarutoвЂ™s toothy grin went viral, and the photo later found its way to Wikipedia. When he stepped away from his camera for a moment, a macaque named Naruto grabbed the camera and took a bunch of photos, including the now-infamous monkey selfie. This case goes way back to 2011, when wildlife photographer David J Slater was in an Indonesian national park taking photos of endangered crested macaques. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, it is worth discussing as a reminder of what constitutes an вЂњauthorвЂќ of a creative work, and the limitations to copyright protection. While this case was ranked as the most ridiculous lawsuit by the U.S. Readers may have read about the dispute over the so-called вЂњmonkey selfieвЂќ taken in 2011 by a macaque named Naruto. Reading Time: 3 minutes Monkeys may be our closest relatives on the evolutionary tree, but are their creative works entitled to copyright protection like ours are? What about an accidental selfie?

Naruto animal i have become