Does a Monkey Have a Right to Sue Over His Selfie?

The macaque in this photo grabbed David Slater’s camera and snapped some selfies (see photo). Slater saw an opportunity to peddle the picture for money. As the “monkey selfie” grew in popularity, and was part of a book, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) sued. They claimed that the macaque, named Naruto, had the same authorship rights to the photo as any human would, meaning Slater infringed those copyrights by republishing it in a book about the infamous photo.

So, PETA sued Slater and Slater’s book company for Naruto’s share of the proceeds. PETA intended for the money to benefit the preserve where Naruto lives, so there was a real economic objective behind the lawsuit.

Seven months later, PETA and Slater settled: Slater agreed to pay 25% of the proceeds to the Indonesian preserve that Naruto calls home.

Next, PETA and Slater moved to dismiss the lawsuit—and here’s where the case takes a legal twist.

This week, the court refused to dismiss the matter. The Ninth Circuit said, “this case has been fully briefed and argued by both sides, and the court has expended considerable resources. ... Denying the motion to dismiss ensures that ‘the investment of public resources already devoted to this litigation will have some return.’”

What the court meant was that dismissing the lawsuit would deprive courts the opportunity to develop precedent over the basic issue of whether an animal has standing to sue in federal court.
What makes this case interesting from a legal standpoint is that Naruto created this picture-- not the human being named david Slater-- and Naruto smiled in an especially appealing manner, as if this macaque were human. 
Where the animal creates value independent and apart from human intervention, should the animal share in the rights? 

Silly though the case seems, it also has real ramifications for animals whose very existence is threatened by reckless human beings. Courts are struggling to figure out how to draw the line—or even if they should draw a line—where an animal sues for a specific court remedy (this is not the first animal standing case). 
Naruto’s selfie may, over time, evolve into a “groupie” for other animals.  
The other possible implication involves Bill O'Reilly and other MeToo lawsuits. If a wealthy party offers enough money to "kill" a lawsuit, the public interest in policing misconduct is lost in the process.
For the past 30 years, this has been a growing problem in sexual harassment and assault cases. Perhaps these settlements have lulled bad actors into a sense of being above the law. 
****

Photo Credit: David J. Slater and Naruto (this blog site does not charge, advertise, or otherwise exploit images for compensation of any kind. Slater's book, available for purchase, is Wildlife Personalities on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/WILDLIFE-PERSONALITIES-David-J-Slater/dp/1320262961).