"Macaca nigra self-portrait". Picture credit: Self-portrait by the depicted Macaca nigra female. Licensed under public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
In the first case of its kind, the ownership of copyright by a non-human is being contested. The picture above is of a series of 'selfies' taken by a female Macaca nigra, and is currently listed by Wikipedia as being in the public domain:
"This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested."
But is this the correct stance to take? David Slater, a photographer who claims that the copyright belongs to him, outlined his argument in an interview with the Telegraph:
"A monkey pressed the button, but I did all the setting up."
The key thing here is the button-pressing. If I press the button on my camera to take a picture, the picture has been taken by me and I own the copyright. It makes no difference whether my wife put the batteries in the camera, or if someone else adjusted the strap. The picture, and the copyright, belong to me.
So why does the Macaca nigra female who took the photograph not own the copyright? Because in US copyright law, nothing but a human being can own a copyright. This is an anthropocentric stance that must surely change if we are to accept that other species can have the same mental and emotional inner lives and relationships that humans do.
Non-human hominids should have at least basic rights comparable to those enjoyed by humans, an argument that has perhaps been made most vocally by The Great Ape Project (GAP), which argues that these rights should include:
- The right to life
- The right to freedom
- The right not to be tortured
Some governments have already given apes some basic legal rights. For instance, the Spanish Parliament approved a resolution in 2008 giving apes the rights listed above, while in Britain current Home Office guidelines forbid experimentation on chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas. But much more needs to be done. All primates, and other 'higher animals', such as elephants, whales and dolphins, should be protected by strict laws enshrining similar rights to those protecting humans.
While Macaca nigra is not an ape but a monkey, securing rights for great apes other than humans would have a direct impact on the legal personhood of other primates, and a knock-on effect on the conference of legal rights for other sentient, non-hominid, animals.
Until then, the monkey made the picture, and as far as I am concerned the copyright belongs to her.
