30 Non-Human Authorship
In 2011, Naruto, a crested black macaque from Sulawesi, Indonesia, inadvertently became the center of an international copyright dispute after taking a series of selfies using a camera belonging to British nature photographer David Slater. During a trip to Indonesia, Slater set up his camera on a tripod and walked away, allowing Naruto to interact with it. The curious macaque managed to press the shutter button, capturing several photographs of himself. One of these images, known as the “monkey selfie,” quickly gained worldwide attention and became a viral sensation, raising questions about the ownership and copyright of the photograph.
The ensuing legal battle, known as Naruto v. Slater, began when the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming that the macaque should be recognized as the author of the selfie and, therefore, hold the copyright. PETA argued that the profits from the photograph should benefit Naruto and his habitat.
In 2016, a federal judge in California ruled that animals cannot hold copyright under U.S. law, a decision that PETA appealed. The case was ultimately settled out of court in 2018, with Slater agreeing to donate 25% of any future revenue from the “monkey selfies” to charities dedicated to protecting the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia. This case has since become a significant example in discussions about animal rights and intellectual property law, illustrating the complexities and limitations of attributing creative works to non-human entities.
The “monkey selfie” scenario and works produced by generative AI share intriguing similarities and differences, particularly in the realms of authorship, copyright, and the role of human intervention.
In the case of Naruto the macaque, the primary question centered on authorship: Can a non-human entity hold the copyright to a creative work? Naruto, a crested black macaque, took a photograph using David Slater’s camera setup. Despite PETA’s efforts to argue that Naruto should hold the copyright, the courts decided that animals cannot be considered authors under U.S. copyright law. This decision highlights the legal framework’s emphasis on human authorship and the complexities of attributing creative rights to non-human creators.
Generative AI, on the other hand, produces works through algorithms designed and implemented by humans. These AI systems can create art, music, literature, and more, often with minimal direct human input during the creation process. However, the key difference lies in the origin of the creative process. AI-generated works are the result of human-created algorithms and training data. Thus, while the AI performs the act of creation, it does so based on the programming and datasets provided by humans. Current copyright laws typically grant authorship to the human programmers or the entities that own the AI, not the AI itself.
Both scenarios challenge traditional notions of authorship and copyright. The “monkey selfie” case underscores the limitation of extending legal authorship to non-human entities. In contrast, generative AI highlights the need to reconsider how intellectual property laws apply when the creative act is performed by machines rather than humans. As AI technology advances, legal systems worldwide may need to adapt to address the nuanced questions of ownership, authorship, and rights in the age of artificial intelligence.
“Monkey Can’t Own Copyright to Selfies, U.S. Appeals Court Says.” Reuters, April 24, 2018. Link
“Naruto v. Slater.” Harvard Law Review, November 10, 2017. Link
This work was generated in collaboration with ChatGPT, an AI language model developed by OpenAI.
This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0