In Naruto v. Slater, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a crested macaque who pressed the shutter on a wildlife photographer’s camera could not hold or sue over a copyright, because the Copyright Act reserves authorship for human beings. The decision left the famous “monkey selfie” in the public domain and gave federal courts a ready template for later disputes over non-human creators, including artificial intelligence.
How the Photo Came to Exist
In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater traveled to the Tangkoko Reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi to photograph crested black macaques. According to the court record, Slater set up his camera equipment in the reserve and a macaque later identified as Naruto pressed the shutter button, producing a series of images.1Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Naruto v. Slater Several frames showed Naruto grinning into the lens, and the photos went viral once Slater published them.
Slater claimed copyright ownership based on his creative choices in setting up the shot, and he published the images in a book through Blurb, Inc., listing himself and his company, Wildlife Personalities, Ltd., as copyright owners.2Justia. Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) That commercial publication is what drew the lawsuit.
PETA’s Lawsuit on Behalf of Naruto
In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued Slater, Wildlife Personalities, and Blurb in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PETA acted as Naruto’s “next friend,” a role in which someone represents a party who cannot appear in court on their own. PETA argued that Naruto owned the copyright because he physically created the photographs, and it asked the court to let PETA manage any royalties for his benefit.
The strategy aimed at establishing precedent for animal personhood in intellectual property. But the courts never reached the ownership question, because a more basic issue came first: whether an animal can be a plaintiff at all.
The District Court Dismissal
Judge William Orrick dismissed the case. The Copyright Act vests copyright “in the author or authors of the work” but nowhere defines “author” to include animals.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 201 – Ownership of Copyright The court pointed to terms threaded through the statute, including “children,” “grandchildren,” “widow,” and “widower,” all of which assume human beings. Without an explicit grant of standing from Congress, Naruto could not sue.
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
PETA appealed, and in April 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.1Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Naruto v. Slater The court went further than the trial judge in two ways.
First, it ruled on the merits. While animals can have statutory standing under some federal statutes, like the Endangered Species Act, the Copyright Act is not one of them. The Act’s repeated use of human-specific language, the court held, “necessarily exclude[s] animals” from authorship and ownership.
Second, the court rejected PETA’s claim to represent Naruto as “next friend.” A next friend must show a significant relationship with the represented party and genuine dedication to that party’s interests. PETA showed no relationship with Naruto more significant than its relationship with any other animal on the planet.
The “Pawn” Criticism
After oral argument, PETA privately settled its own claims with Slater and then asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the appeal and wipe out the district court’s ruling. The court refused. It observed that Naruto was not a party to PETA’s settlement and that PETA appeared to have “abandoned Naruto’s substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA’s institutional interests.”2Justia. Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) PETA, the court wrote, “seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals.” The Ninth Circuit awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendants.
Who Owns the Monkey Selfie Now
No one owns it. Naruto cannot hold a copyright because he is not human. Slater’s authorship claim is undermined by the fact that he did not press the shutter that produced the images. The U.S. Copyright Office’s Compendium, updated in December 2014, specifically lists “a photograph taken by a monkey” as an example of a work the Office will not register, alongside other works produced by nature, animals, or plants.4U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium: Chapter 300 Copyrightable Authorship: What Can Be Registered
The photograph sits in the public domain. Anyone can reproduce, distribute, or build on it. Neither Slater nor anyone else can stop them. That is why the Wikimedia Foundation kept the image on Wikimedia Commons after Slater’s 2014 request to take it down, on the ground that copyright requires human authorship.5Wikimedia Foundation. Mailbag: What Is Going on With Wikipedia and the Monkey Selfie
The parties did reach a private settlement in September 2017 while the appeal was pending. Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of future gross revenue from the photographs to charities protecting crested macaque habitat in Indonesia.2Justia. Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) That deal did not change the legal outcome, because the Ninth Circuit refused to vacate the underlying opinion.
Why the Case Still Matters: AI-Generated Works
The reasoning in Naruto reached well past animal rights. When courts began deciding whether artificial intelligence could be listed as the author of a copyrighted work, the monkey selfie case was waiting as ready-made precedent.
In 2025, the D.C. Circuit decided Thaler v. Perlmutter, in which AI researcher Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright for a visual work generated entirely by his AI system, the “Creativity Machine.” The court denied the application, holding that “the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”6United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thaler v. Perlmutter The D.C. Circuit cited Naruto v. Slater by name as part of the “well-settled” understanding that an author cannot be a non-human entity.
The Copyright Office follows the same principle in its registration guidance. Applicants must disclose AI-generated material in a submitted work and identify what a human actually created; AI-generated content that goes beyond a trivial amount has to be excluded from the copyright claim.7Federal Register. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence The rule traces to the same idea the Ninth Circuit applied to Naruto: without a human making the creative choices, copyright does not attach.
Where the Law Stands
The Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion on the merits, and it stands. Combined with the D.C. Circuit’s 2025 Thaler decision, the human-authorship requirement is now backed by appellate rulings in two federal circuits, and by the Copyright Office’s own registration practice. Congress could change the rule, and the courts have said as much, but no pending legislation would extend copyright authorship to non-human creators. A photograph taken by a monkey and a work generated by an algorithm currently sit in the same legal category: no human author, no copyright.