Ninth Circuit to Rule in Monkey Selfie Case Despite Settlement
The court declined to dismiss the case, saying it's "wary of abetting 'strategic behavior' on the part of institutional litigants."
April 13, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The Ninth Circuit is heading back to the zoo.
Seven months after a nature photographer and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals settled the famed monkey selfie copyright case, the appellate court has said not so fast. It will be issuing an opinion after all, and probably shortly.
For reasons including its wariness of “abetting 'strategic behavior' on the part of institutional litigants,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the parties' joint motion last fall to dismiss the case and vacate a lower court order from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California.
Naruto v. Slater made international headlines last year when PETA challenged photographer David Slater's copyright claim on portraits of a macaque shot in Indonesia. Though the parties dispute exactly how the photos were taken, PETA alleged that Slater had set up his camera and monkey Naruto had deliberately pressed the shutter multiple times after becoming aware of his own reflection in the lens.
PETA and a primatologist who said she'd monitored the macaques for years brought suit as Naruto's next friends, saying the monkey should hold the copyright, not Slater. Slater and book publisher Blurb argued that the Copyright Act does not contemplate awards to non-human authors.
After the primatologist dropped out on appeal, and oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit seemed to favor Slater and Blurb, the parties struck a settlement deal in which Slater reportedly agreed to donate 25 percent of future revenue from the selfies to charities that protect Naruto's habitat.
Competitive Enterprise Institute, with counsel from Theodore Frank, opposed the parties' motion to dismiss the case. Even if the Ninth Circuit chose not to rule, it should leave Orrick's district court order in favor of Slater in place, Frank argued. That would “deter PETA and other groups from using the Copyright Act as an ideological weapon to generate publicity and impose legal costs on innocent copyright holders,” Frank wrote at the time.
The Ninth Circuit never ruled, until now. It noted in an unsigned five-page order that PETA has brought multiple actions asserting that animals have standing. “As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, 'courts must be particularly wary of abetting 'strategic behavior' on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case,” the court stated.
Berkeley solo Andrew Dhuey said he had not yet discussed the order with his client, Slater. But, he said, “I expect the court will issue a decision on the merits very shortly.”
PETA general counsel Jeff Kerr said in an emailed statement that the joint request to dismiss following settlement was “standard practice.”
“We will await further action by the court—but meanwhile, Naruto and his macaque community in Indonesia have benefited in the monkey-selfie case,” he said. “The owner of the camera that Naruto used to take the photographs agreed to donate 25 percent of his gross proceeds from the pictures to charities working to protect monkeys from being killed for bush meat and from human encroachment.”
The Ninth Circuit panel handling the case includes Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and N. Randy Smith and U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250