This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Animal Protection

Naruto, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc.; Antje Engelhardt, Ph.D. v. David John Slater, an individual; Blurb Inc.; Wildlife Personalities Ltd.

Published: Oct. 13, 2017 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 2017 | Filing Date: Sep. 21, 2015 |

Case number: 15-cv-04324-WHO Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David A. Schwarz
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Jeffrey S. Kerr
(PETA Foundation)

Matthew D. Strugar
(Law Office of Matthew Strugar)

Martina Bernstein
(PETA Foundation)


Defendant

Angela L. Dunning
(Cooley LLP) for Blurb Inc.

Andrew J. Dhuey
(Law Office of Andrew J. Dhuey) for David Slater and Wildlife Personalities Ltd.


Facts

Naruto, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. and Antje Engelhardt, filed a copyright infringement claim against David Slater, Blurb Inc., and Wildlife Personalities Ltd., in relation to photograph Naruto took of himself.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Naruto was a six-year-old male crested macaque who lived in the jungles of Indonesia. Naruto took a "selfie" in 2011 with defendant Slater's camera that had been left unattended. Slater then published the photographs using Blurb's online publishing service, prompting this copyright infringement lawsuit.

PETA contended that Naruto owned the rights to his selfie and that defendants infringed on this right by selling copies of his images for profit.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that animals lacked standing. Further, that intellectual rights under the Copyright Act do not extend to animals. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for relief.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

Other Information

PETA settled on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court was advised of the settlement. PETA also requested dismissal of the appeal, but the court has not acted on that request as of yet.


#128275

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390