Monkeys do not have standing under US Copyright Act
Aislinn O’Connell · Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2018
Naruto, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc v David John Slater; Blurb, Inc; Wildlife Personalities, Ltd, US CA 9th Circuit, Unreported, 2018 Naruto v Slater (unreported, US CA 9th Circuit 2018) dismissed claims for copyright infringement on the basis that animals lack authority to issue such claims. Following the Cetacean case (Cetacean Cmty v Bush, 386 F 3d 1169, (9th Cir 2004)), in which the Court of Appeal had found that the US Constitution does not expressly deny that animals have standing under Article III, the court in this case was bound to accept that position unless overturned by an en banc hearing. This case then turned on whether PETA met the requirements to be a Next Friend for Naruto, and whether Naruto had standing to sue under the US Copyright Act. A Next Friend acts in a situation where a petitioner is unable to litigate their own case, whether through mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or some other similar disability and the Next Friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to, the best interests of the petitioner (Coalition of Clergy v Bush, 310 F 3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir 2002)) (quoting Massie ex rel Kroll v Woodford, 244 F 3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir 2001)). Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Naruto had standing to sue for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, or whether the provisions of the Act only applied to humans.