{"id":57,"date":"2018-07-11T14:51:39","date_gmt":"2018-07-11T18:51:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/?p=57"},"modified":"2018-07-11T14:51:39","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T18:51:39","slug":"name-blog-entry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/2018\/07\/11\/name-blog-entry\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Recently Slams PETA Over Monkey Selfie Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ninth Circuit Recently Slams PETA Over Monkey Selfie Lawsuit, Finding That PETA\u2019s \u201cNext Friend\u201d Lawsuit Used Monkey as a \u201cPawn\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

By: Michelle C. Pardo<\/a><\/p>\n

As the old saying goes, \u201cwith friends like these, who needs enemies?\u201d<\/p>\n

Last year, animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), acting as a purported \u201cnext friend\u201d of a Sulawesi crested macaque (named \u201cNaruto\u201d), brought a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against wildlife photographer David Slater and a self-publishing book company over a \u201cselfie\u201d that the\u00a0macaque had taken when it grabbed wildlife photographer Slater\u2019s camera.\u00a0\u00a0 PETA had alleged that the monkey, as author and owner of the photograph, had a claim for copyright infringement against defendants.\u00a0 After finding that the monkey had constitutional standing, but no standing under the Copyright Act, the district court dismissed the case. \u00a0PETA appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.After oral argument on the appeal, PETA asked the court to dismiss their appeal and to vacate the district court\u2019s adverse judgment, stating that it had settled the claims against Slater (although Naruto was not a party to the settlement). In a surprising move, the Ninth Circuit decided to issue a decision after<\/em> PETA\u2019s request to dismiss the appeal, calling PETA\u2019s strategy \u201cwhat appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA\u2019s institutional interest\u201d.\u00a0 See Naruto v. Slater<\/em>, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).<\/a><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit panel criticized PETA for claiming it was a \u201cnext friend\u201d of the monkey (as PETA failed to allege any facts to support the requisite significant relationship between a \u201cnext friend\u201d and a real party in interest).<\/p>\n

The Court called out PETA for \u201cseem[ing] to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Court recognized that while Congress has authorized \u201cnext friend\u201d lawsuits on behalf of habeas petitioners and \u201cminor or incompetent persons\u201d, it declined to recognize \u201cnext friend\u201d lawsuits on behalf of animals (absent express authorization from Congress).<\/p>\n

While the Court did not recognize PETA as a \u201cnext friend\u201d of Naruto, it considered whether Naruto had standing to sue under the copyright laws on another jurisdictional basis \u2013 i.e<\/em>. in his own right. The concept of an animal suing in its own right had been previously established by a Ninth Circuit panel in Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush<\/em>, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004)\u2014a case involving \u201call of the world\u2019s whales, porpoises and dolphins\u201d challenge to the government\u2019s use of Navy sonar. While the Naruto<\/em> panel reluctantly found that it was bound by Cetacean Community<\/em> (even\u00a0where it determined that a\u00a0decision was unwise or incorrect) and that it could provide a basis for a non-human animal\u2019s constitutional standing, it urged the Ninth Circuit to reexamine that case.<\/p>\n

The Court nevertheless found that the monkey did not have statutory standing to sue. Essentially, if Congress intended for non-human animals to sue under the Copyright Act, it needed to plainly state this.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause animals do not possess cognizable interests, it stands to reason that they cannot bring suit in federal court in their own names to protect such interests unless Congress determines otherwise.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While it may come as no surprise that the Ninth Circuit refused to extend statutory standing under the Copyright Act to a monkey, the decision is significant for its overt chiding of PETA\u2019s motives in bringing the case. To add insult to injury, the Court ordered PETA to pay Slater and Wildlife Personalities\u2019 attorneys\u2019 fees and costs on appeal. To date, the appropriate amount of attorneys\u2019 fees has yet to be determined by the district court.<\/p>\n

This decision may well be pivotal in reducing baseless litigation brought by animal activists that clog the courts, waste precious judicial resources, and serve to advance activist groups\u2019 fundraising and ideological goals.<\/p>\n

The impact of Naruto v. Slater<\/em> may ultimately extend beyond ownership of Naruto\u2019s selfie. Last month, the parties were required to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the court should entertain rehearing en banc <\/em>(by all judges of a court rather than a selected panel), either to address whether this\u00a0decision never should have issued in light of PETA\u2019s request to dismiss the appeal or whether the Ninth Circuit should overrule\u00a0the prior decision in Cetacean Community<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ninth Circuit Recently Slams PETA Over Monkey Selfie Lawsuit, Finding That PETA\u2019s \u201cNext Friend\u201d Lawsuit Used Monkey as a \u201cPawn\u201d By: Michelle C. Pardo As the old saying goes, \u201cwith friends like these, who needs enemies?\u201d Last year, animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), acting as a purported \u201cnext friend\u201d … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Recently Slams PETA Over Monkey Selfie Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":318,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[43,44,49,50,47,42,46,48,45],"ppma_author":[698],"class_list":["post-57","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-activist","tag-animal-activist","tag-animal-law","tag-cetacean","tag-copyright","tag-michelle-pardo","tag-monkey-selfie","tag-ninth-circuit","tag-peta"],"authors":[{"term_id":698,"user_id":318,"is_guest":0,"slug":"mcpardo","display_name":"Michelle Pardo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/pardomichelle-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/318"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=57"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}