Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    A Monkey, PETA, and a Primatologist Walk into a Federal Court

    A Monkey, PETA, and a Primatologist Walk into a Federal Court

    Not a punchline, this is real life

    No rimshot here. Not only is this a thing that happened, it’s pulled straight from a motion filed with the Ninth Circuit this earlier week.

    The bizarre monkey selfie case outdid itself this week.

    According to PetaPixel:

    In September, the animal rights group PETA filed a lawsuit against photographer David Slater, arguing that the monkey who took a series of viral selfies with Slater’s camera in 2011 should be the rightful copyright owner.

    If you thought that was strange, get this: the legal battle has now evolved into a dispute over the pictured monkey’s identity and gender.

    But it gets better. The defense counsel then submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion began:

    A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punchline is really happening. It should not be happening…. [D]ismissal of this action is required for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law – at least not in the Ninth Circuit.

    Entire, hilarious motion:

    Naruto v David John Slater – Motion to Dismiss

    Someone buy this man a drink.

    For a primer on Monkey-Selfie-PETAGate, see:

    [Insert “monkey business” joke here]

    Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    They’re spinning a narrative for #LoveWins.

    I have a simple test for ownership. Can the party sell it. It not, they don’t ‘own’ anything. If I wanted to buy the photos, could I?

    Lawyers of course would starve if it were that logical.

    The Ninth Circuit is the highest regional court in the California and western area, one step below the United States Supreme Court.
    It is both ludicrous and an outrage that the valuable time of a senior court, three judges, and their battalions of supporting bureaucrats would be consumed by such a truly frivolous issue such as whether a monkey can hold a copyright on a photo of himself. The idea for the photo, and the “creativeness” belong to the (human) photographer.
    There are more and more nuts out there, and they are now nearly in control of the asylum.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend