Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

When a monkey takes a selfie ...

By Danny Cevallos
updated 4:07 PM EDT, Mon August 18, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Danny Cevallos: Photog whose camera used in viral monkey selfie wants it off Wikipedia
  • Photo is uncopyrightable, says Wikipedia because animals can't own copyright. But can they?
  • U.S. copyright law holds work must be in tangible medium, be original and have author
  • Cevallos: Animals aren't authors. This selfie doesn't qualify for copyright protection

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter: @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Selfies are everywhere. Even Indonesian macaques are getting into the game. In 2011, two of these Old World monkeys borrowed photographer David J. Slater's camera and reportedly snapped some pictures of themselves. One of the selfies by a female macaque has since gone viral, making its way to Wikipedia's free-to-use website.

Slater asked the site to take down the photo, but Wikipedia asserts the photo is uncopyrightable because animals can't own copyrights.

Danny Cevallos
Danny Cevallos

It raises two interesting questions:

First, can a monkey even acquire copyright in a selfie?

Second, can a human acquire copyright in a monkey's selfie?

It's a depressing idea, that the terabytes of gratuitous selfies snapped by vapid 20-somethings -- serving no other artistic purpose than showing off their outfit or their abs on Instagram -- would be entitled to copyright protection.

Meanwhile, a one-of-a-kind "selfie" by a downright adorable monkey, might not be entitled to protection. But the law -- international and domestic -- is full of grim irony.

In the United States, to qualify for copyright protection, a work (the photograph) must meet three criteria:

(1) It must be fixed in a tangible medium: No problem here. Photographs are a classic example of fixation in a tangible medium, just like paint on a canvas or doodles in a textbook. This is easily satisfied by our simian.

(2) It must be "original." The Supreme Court has observed that this means possessing a shred of creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be. There's an important distinction to be made here, however: Animals might be capable of original works, but mere works of nature cannot qualify.

A tortoiseshell or an ostrich egg is created by a living creature, and may be more symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing than many of the wacky sculptures gracing our federal buildings. But they are the result of survival or procreation, not a creative choice. Therefore, these animal creations are not original -- at least under copyright law.

Selfies turned into museum exhibit
Russian soldier's selfies backfire
Put the phone away if ...

On the other hand, some animals do express themselves creatively, and with that minimal degree of creativity required by the law. It's just hard to say where we draw the line on the evolutionary scale. A finger-painting gorilla is likely expressing originality, but if you dip a beetle in ink and let him walk around on paper, is the beetle showing his creative spark? Or is he simply trying to flee?

Overall, originality is a low threshold, and probably satisfied by the macaque's selfie. It's also a purely academic discussion, because while some animals' work may be original, unfortunately for aspiring macaques, no animal can ever be an "author."

Which brings us to ...

(3) The work must have an "author." In the U.S., the term "authorship" implies that the work must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable. Similarly, in the UK, an author must be a "person."

The bottom line is that monkeys may create works of art, but those works cannot qualify for copyright protection. So, can humans acquire rights in works created by animals? One view would be that (a) if animals are your property, and (b) they create property, then (c) the property of your property is also your property. A dairy farmer owns the egg laid by a chicken; kittens become the property of the owner of the cat that birthed them.

Unfortunately for the photographer here, copyright ownership does not work the way ownership does on the farm. Because the monkey cannot create a copyrightable work, that work can never be copyrightable. On the other hand, if the photographer takes a work by an animal and turns it into an ink-blotted, Andy Warhol-inspired piece of pop art, then he acquires rights in the new creation. But in the case of a monkey's selfie by itself, that photograph immediately and forever falls into the public domain, and can be used by anyone, without permission.

Society's view of animals has certainly evolved over the years. In fact, it has evolved so much that it creates public confusion. The concept of "animal rights" is a compassionate one, but it also runs counter to our current legal view of animals. Animal lovers routinely ascribe human qualities to their beloved pets, and animal rights activists will burn a columnist in effigy for daring to suggest that a dog shouldn't vote or drive a bus.

For now, whether you consider monkeys to be property or peer, their pictures cannot qualify for protection in the Copyright Office. In the case of copyright, that which is created by Mother Nature, is owned by Mother Nature -- which is to say it is owned, not by one of us, but all of us.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 3:12 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
The plan by President Obama to provide legal status to millions of undocumented adults living in the U.S. leaves Republicans in a political quandary.
updated 10:13 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Despite criticism from those on the right, Obama's expected immigration plans won't make much difference to deportation numbers, says Ruben Navarette.
updated 8:21 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
As new information and accusers against Bill Cosby are brought to light, we are reminded of an unshakable feature of American life: rape culture.
updated 5:56 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
When black people protest against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri, they're thought of as a "mob."
updated 3:11 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Lost in much of the coverage of ISIS brutality is how successful the group has been at attracting other groups, says Peter Bergen.
updated 8:45 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Do recent developments mean that full legalization of pot is inevitable? Not necessarily, but one would hope so, says Jeffrey Miron.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
We don't know what Bill Cosby did or did not do, but these allegations should not be easily dismissed, says Leslie Morgan Steiner.
updated 10:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Does Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have the influence to bring stability to Jerusalem?
updated 12:59 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Even though there are far fewer people being stopped, does continued use of "broken windows" strategy mean minorities are still the target of undue police enforcement?
updated 9:58 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
The truth is, we ran away from the best progressive persuasion voice in our times because the ghost of our country's original sin still haunts us, writes Cornell Belcher.
updated 4:41 PM EST, Tue November 18, 2014
Children living in the Syrian city of Aleppo watch the sky. Not for signs of winter's approach, although the cold winds are already blowing, but for barrel bombs.
updated 8:21 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
We're stuck in a kind of Middle East Bermuda Triangle where messy outcomes are more likely than neat solutions, says Aaron David Miller.
updated 7:16 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
In the midst of the fight against Islamist rebels seeking to turn the clock back, a Kurdish region in Syria has approved a law ordering equality for women. Take that, ISIS!
updated 11:07 PM EST, Sun November 16, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says President Obama would be justified in acting on his own to limit deportations
updated 8:21 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
America will have its hands full in the Middle East for years to come, writes Aaron David Miller.
updated 11:17 AM EST, Sat November 15, 2014
Gene Seymour says it's part of our pioneering makeup to keep exploring the universe
updated 12:42 PM EST, Fri November 14, 2014
Sally Kohn says the U.S.-China agreement to cut carbon emissions is a big deal, and Republicans should take note.
updated 4:29 PM EST, Sat November 15, 2014
S.E. Cupp says the Obamacare advisor who repeatedly disses the electorate in a series of videotaped remarks reveals arrogance and cluelessnes.
updated 5:00 PM EST, Fri November 14, 2014
Reggie Littlejohn says gendercide is a human rights abuse against women, with bad consequences for nations.
updated 11:57 AM EST, Thu November 13, 2014
The massing of Russian forces near Ukraine only reinforces the impression that Moscow has no interest in reconciliation with the West, writes Michael Kofman.
updated 9:55 AM EST, Wed November 12, 2014
It takes a real man to make the moves on the wife of the most powerful man in the biggest country. Especially when the wife is a civilian major general.
updated 8:47 AM EST, Wed November 12, 2014
Proponents of marriage equality LGBT persons have been on quite a winning streak -- 32 states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriage.
updated 8:58 AM EST, Thu November 13, 2014
It has been an eventful few weeks for space news.
updated 3:14 PM EST, Wed November 12, 2014
It's too early to write the U.S. off, and China's leaderships knows that better than anyone, argues Kerry Brown.
updated 1:21 PM EST, Wed November 12, 2014
"How can Jon Stewart hire you to be 'The Daily Show''s senior Muslim correspondent when you don't even know how to pronounce Salaam Al-aikum?!"
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT