The Monkey Selfie Case: Analyzing Naruto v. Slater Under South African Copyright Law

First, No, this has nothing to do with the critically acclaimed shonen anime, Naruto created by Masashi Kishimoto. I do wish this was writing regarding my love for it, but no, i just used the image because the case we will use to discuss the Copyright act in South Africa has the name "Naruto" in its case citation. So that became enough reason for me to use the image of one of my favourite characters in moving pictures history.

We gather here just to do a dive analyses on the Copyright law in south africa, specifically the Copyright Act. We will discuss it using the USA landmark case of Naruto v Slater, which is also referred to as the "Monkey Selfie case" to discuss how the Copyright act would have applied in reaching a judgment to the issue this case presented to the law. Ofcourse like most of my writing, lets start with the background

1. NARUTO V SLATER: THE MONKEY SELFIE CASE

   Before we begin with looking at the facts and the background of the case, i just want to get this out early and that, The Monkey did not win ownership of the photo it take. The money for the purposes of the copyright law in south would never be regarded as an author of works eligible for copyright and would therefore never be regarded as owner of works eligible for copright protection. On top of that, the monkey having lack of legal standing, because it does not qualify as "everyone" in terms of the Constitutions object to ensure Access to courts to "Everyone" would have this case thrown out before the Magistrate/Judge/Justice clerk could say "All rise". There isnt a lacuna in the legislation due to Monkeys not having the legal standing to take dudes to court for a copyrighrt infringment case. So no, this wont be an intellectualization of WHY MONKEYS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO COURTS.

   Lets begin:

The Naruto V Slatter case is a matter that emanates from the United States of America,

the land of the free and brave. What happened was one of those youtube videos you see of a cat playing the piano or a dog saying "hello" to its carer. Its those freak occurence where you wonder "how the f**** does that happen.

Well the facts of the case involve that.

Mr Slatter one day took a trip to Indonesia. City boys where up that year and his passport was ready to go. He got to Indonesia and saw the sights, the mountain ranges and the monkeys. Ohh there were so may monkeys that dude had to capture the volume and the variety in monkeys in this place. There were so may Monkeys that Mr Slatter left his unattended, there might have been a timer in order for the camera to just snap what ever passes its lense. It snap, snap and snap and finally that youtube worthy event happen. A Monkey instead of swinging pass the lense, it halted its swinging, approach the camera and for some reason decided to exercise "free will". It picked up the camera and took multiple pictures, not just pictures, self pictures. Monkey was hitting the Drake pout, gang sign and all that on camera. It was like a glitch in the matrix. Monkey proceeded to do its thing with the lense, put the camera back and resumed with its swinging like it didnt just take vogue worthy photos.

Mr Slatter returns from where ever his destiny lead him to and checked to see the cool things that his camera captured while he was away. I didnt the judgment in its entirety but i imagine Slatter could not believe his reality at that moment. It must have felt like a movie at the time because WTF right. Mr composed himself and saw this as his breakthrough. He got in the lab, red room and all that. Got those photos ready and approach a publishing house to have his book of wildlife published, sold, new yorks bestseller in the genre and dollars, dollars, dollars. He got in that meeting, pulled out those Money pictures and boom, lets get paid. Got his ownership on, got his licensing of his book in order so that anyone who uses the glitch in the matrix Monkey self image about a monkey that took a selfie would need to ask for his permission, pay him a nice bag then use that anomaly of a photo. I imagine this was money glitch for some years for Slatter until some nerds pulled up, used the photo and said, since this was taken by a monkey its works that falls under the public and therefore cannot be owned by Slatter. This is where the animal organisation PETA comes in. PETA was like wait, the Monkey who has a human name, Naruto, is the rightful owner of the photographs that he took and therefore should be regarded as the owner and author of the copyright over the photographs and the rightful beneficiary to that licensing bag that Slatter been eating off. Hey if i was that Monkey, i would be pissed to.

For some reason, PETA's papers must have been brilliant because how on earth did this make it to trial strage where presentation and arguments and points of persuasion are being made that the Monkey is the owner and should be rightfully compensated by Slatter for infringing "his" copyright. The Court was face with the followiing Legal Questions.

2. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL QUESTION THE COURT HAD TO ANSWER:

   a) Can a Non-human be the author of copyrightable works and claim copyright infringement? Now that you read, whats going through your mind?

   Note laws govern humans interaction with the community, with the society.Let me land. Laws are regulators of maintainers of law and order, ensuring civilised standards that govern the way we interact and engage with external world and with each other are kept in proper order. It would not make sense to say that Laws regulates the interaction of the society with the human. In simple terms the law does not govern monkeys interaction with humans, it does however govern humans interactions with monkey.

   
   

3. WITHIN A SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL CONTENT: ANSWERING THE QUESTIONG THROUGH THE PRISM OF THE SA COPY RIGHT LAWS.

In looking at legislation, my starting point is always to find what the objective/purpose of the document is. I try to establish first, what part of the the collective human race is the document regulating and for what purpose is it doing that. For exampled the Criminal Procedure act is regulating that part of the human race that wants to act in accordance to its impulses and act as if we living in "The Purge"- you get it, the movie where everyone can act out any of their thoughts without consequence. Its purpose basically is to ensure law and order, to ensure that we are fairly nice to each other and if we are not, then you will be punished because you are behaving contrary to ensuring our preservation as a species.

Lets look at the CopyRight Act No.98 of 1978:

The object of the Copyright act is "to regulate copyright and provide for matters incidental thereto. What this means is that the documents regulates the stuff you `formulate in your mins and then materialize into the physical realm, It does not apply to that idea you shared with your brazos while on a 48hr binge drinking Black label (not a paid promotion- actually not a promotion at all) spree.We will get back on works eligible for copyright protection later, but in brief.

This documents regulates that aspect of the collective human race by providing for what can be under the copyright umbrella, who can enjoy the benefits of the copyright umbrella and what rights are in a copyright and finally, what constitute as one disturbing your benefit to the copyright umbrella. Let Break it down:

a) Work Eligible for Copyright: What can be under the Copyright Umbrella:

Various works can be eligible for copright, this includes, as espoused in section 2 of the copyright act the following:

• Literary work

• Musical work

• Artistic work

As per section 2 of the act, besides your work falling under these works, it must also be original. You cant hold a copyright over stuff that you copied, "word for word, bar for bar, he stole my whole f****king flow". There is basically two requirements to your work being copyright protectable, 1. It must fall under the categories of listed works provided in section 2 of the act, 2. It must be original. Courts have interpreted the originality requirements for the purposes of the copyright act to mean the composition must come from your efforts, human intelligence, action.

b) Beneficiaries of the CopyRight: Who enjoys the benefits of the copyright umbrella:

The author enjoys the benefits of the copyright. Let quickly break it down. An author for the purposes of the application of the act is a person who is responsible for the composition of the work. Like setting up, positioning, drawing, painting, pushing buttons, breaking moves, the composition has to be from yourself. If someone else was involved in putting it together, then know that you will co-possessors of the copyright over the thing, unless a contract provides for a different arrangement.

Now a copyright is a social contract, just like how traffic lights create a social contract between drivers in that we all in agreement that green means go, red means stop and orange means, at your discretion but dont mess it up for everyone. Copyright also creates that social contract between humans, in that we agree that if i create something, make something, then that something is mine and cannot be copied. It cannot be copied unless you come to me and ask me to copy. Like contract, there are rights and obligation between the parties to the contract. The rights one has in a copyright is the right to Reproduce, Publish, Make an Adaptation, Borrow out for a fee(license) and so forth. Basically you can do whatever you want with it.

As i mentioned above, copyright is a social contract that follows the rules of contract in that as much as there is a right created, there is also an obligation and when those obligation are not met, then you have a breach of contract- Infringement of Copyright.

c) When does Infringement happen: Who took my poptarts without my permission

A copyright is infringed when the infringer (gustavo fring) uses the originators work like they have the right. They reproduce, make adaptation, publish.... what they are not responsible for composing without the permission of the composer.

Now lets put all that together and apply this to the Monkey and the Photographer situation

4. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS: How it would Play out.

   Quick Recap: Dude, leaves camera, Monkey comes and takes selfie with camera, dude somes back, creates a book filled with the monkey selfie pictures, publishes, license, gets a bag and haters said he is not the owner of the copyright, the monkey is.

   FIRST: COPY RIGHT ELIGIBILITY

   Photographs are regarded to be artistic works, protectable under the copyright law. Therefore this photograph possess copyright.

   SECOND: WHO IS THE AUTHOR

   The copyright can only be enjoyed by the author, the person who is responsible for the composition of the photograph. Now here it gets technical because this is where we can get to see who possess the copyright within this peculiar situation. Follow me- The author is the "Person". Pause it. Now immediately the copyright act is speaking to us and is saying that Monkey cannot be regarded as an author for the purposes of the copyright act. The document only recognises natural persons and juristic entities. So right there we have answered the main legal question. A non-human cannot be regarded as an author of works eligible for copyright and therefore cannot not enjoy the benefits of copyright ownership.

   
   

   Now does that mean that Mr Slatter is good within the copyright act street, does that mean he is the owner? Nop....... oh sorry, i mean negative. The reason Mr Slatter with all his "Person" characteristic cannot be regarded as the owner of the copyright because dude did absolutely nothing. He just left his camera there to do whatever he went to do go. Him leaving the camera there was not through a genuis effort of his mind in which he left it knowing that a monkey would come and decided to take selfies with a cannon, which is impressive by the way, a whole cannon. Therefore because of that, Mr Slatter although a person, cannot qualify as a person responsible for the composition. Providing the tool does not equate to creating the work, unless if he entered into a contract with the monkey that what ever pictures the monkey produces would be his to enjoy the rights of.

CONCLUSION:

Neither monkey named naruto nor human named Slatter, enjoy copyright over these photograph. I do feel bad for the monkey because he really was responsible for the composition of those selfies. He did it all but was let down by technicalities of not being a homo sapien.

So no non-human, meaning animals, cannot hold copyright over works they made because of a glitch in reality.

DISCLAIMER:

This does not constitute as legal advise nor legal authority for COPYRIGHT LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA. These are essentially my opinions based on how i interpretated the documents I engaged with. Please do further research, consult your Attorney.

All information,content whatsoever was used for purposes of education. Nothing used here which emanates from outside my brain was used for purpose of for-profit.