Naruto v. Slater

Naruto v. Slater isn't technically an AI case. It's about a monkey who took a selfie. But it's the most-cited precedent in every AI authorship dispute in U.S. courts, including Thaler v. Perlmutter. In April 2018, the Ninth Circuit held that the Copyright Act doesn't extend standing to non-human entities, establishing the principle that courts now apply directly to AI-generated works.

Background

In 2011, wildlife photographer David Slater traveled to Indonesia and left his camera equipment accessible to a group of crested macaque monkeys. A monkey named Naruto picked up the camera and took several photographs, including a now-famous grinning selfie. Slater published the photos in a book.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit on Naruto's behalf, claiming the monkey owned the copyright to the photographs and was harmed by their publication. PETA argued that Naruto, as the creator of the images, was the "author" entitled to copyright protection.

The case was filed in the Northern District of California. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that animals can't bring copyright claims. PETA appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

What Happened

The Ninth Circuit heard arguments from PETA's attorneys and from Slater's counsel. The central legal question was whether a non-human entity has standing to bring a copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act.

PETA's argument was creative: the Copyright Act uses the word "author" without defining it as a human being. If Naruto created the photograph by pressing the shutter button, PETA argued, Naruto should qualify as the author regardless of species. The organization pointed to the constitutional purpose of copyright, promoting the progress of science and useful arts, and argued that it shouldn't be limited by the identity of the creator.

Slater and the Copyright Office (which filed an amicus brief) argued that the Copyright Act was written by and for human beings. The statute doesn't expressly authorize non-human entities to file copyright claims, and courts shouldn't read that authorization into the law. The Copyright Office's own Compendium of Practices explicitly stated that it would only register works created by human beings.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion on April 23, 2018, affirming the district court's dismissal. Judges Smith, Murguia, and Bea held that the Copyright Act does not extend standing to non-human entities. Animals lack statutory standing to bring copyright infringement claims.

The court drew a distinction between constitutional standing (Article III) and statutory standing. Even if Naruto could satisfy the constitutional requirements of injury, causation, and redressability, the Copyright Act doesn't grant non-human entities the right to sue. Without statutory standing, the case couldn't proceed.

The opinion noted that Congress could amend the Copyright Act to include non-human entities, but it hasn't done so. Courts interpret statutes as written, and the Copyright Act doesn't authorize monkeys, animals, or any other non-human entity to own copyrights or enforce them in court.

Outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that animals lack statutory standing to bring copyright claims. The Copyright Act does not expressly authorize non-human entities to file copyright infringement suits.

Why This Case Matters

Naruto v. Slater established the legal principle that non-human entities can't be copyright authors or bring copyright claims. When AI authorship cases started appearing five years later, this was the precedent courts reached for first.

Judge Howell cited Naruto directly in Thaler v. Perlmutter when holding that AI-generated works don't qualify for copyright. The reasoning maps cleanly: if a monkey that physically pressed a shutter button can't be an author, an AI system that generates an image from a text prompt can't be one either. Both are non-human entities that lack statutory standing under the Copyright Act.

The case also demonstrates how precedent works in unexpected ways. When PETA filed this lawsuit in 2015, AI-generated art wasn't on anyone's radar. But the legal principle the Ninth Circuit established, that authorship requires humanity, became the foundation for an entirely different technology debate. Attorneys litigating AI copyright issues today are working with a framework that was built by a monkey selfie case.

Lessons for Attorneys

Understand the precedent chain. If you're litigating or advising on AI authorship issues, Naruto v. Slater is the starting point, not Thaler v. Perlmutter. The Ninth Circuit's holding that non-human entities lack statutory standing under the Copyright Act is the principle that all subsequent AI authorship rulings build on. Know this case inside and out.

The statutory standing analysis is the key framework. The Copyright Act doesn't explicitly authorize non-human entities to be authors or to bring copyright claims. Until Congress amends the statute, this is the law. Arguments about the policy benefits of AI copyright or the economic incentives for AI development don't overcome the statutory text. Courts have been consistent: they interpret the law as written.

For attorneys advising clients on AI-generated content, the Naruto principle applies broadly. Any content created by a non-human entity without sufficient human creative involvement is uncopyrightable. This applies to AI-generated text, images, music, code, and any other creative work. The species of the non-human creator doesn't matter. What matters is whether a human author made the creative choices that define the work.

The Bottom Line

A monkey selfie case from 2018 became the foundation for AI copyright law. Naruto v. Slater established that non-human entities can't be authors under the Copyright Act, and that principle now applies directly to AI-generated works in every federal court.