Jul 26, 2017 2 min read

Dave Molter’s column, “Monkey see, monkey sue,” taking issue with the case of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a federal appeals court on behalf of Naruto, a free crested male macaque monkey, who unquestionably took the famous “monkey selfie” photos, misses the mark.

Under the framework of the Copyright Act and case law, Naruto clearly should own the copyrights to the photographs that he undeniably took of himself, just as any other photographer would. According to the law, it doesn’t matter who owned the camera, it just matters who took the pictures, which was Naruto. As we learn more about these highly intelligent, complex animals who have their own language and culture, we have a moral imperative to acknowledge appropriate fundamental rights for their protection. Every penny of the funds raised from Naruto’s photos should go directly towards helping the endangered macaques who are being killed illegally for bush meat and whose habitat is disappearing due to human encroachment.

Excluding Naruto from copyright ownership is unjust. Why are only humans allowed to own the intellectual property resulting from their actions? Art made by animals has already proved to possess real creative significance. A captive chimpanzee named Congo whose paintings sold for more than $25,000 at an art auction also reportedly dazzled Pablo Picasso.

Awarding Naruto the copyrights he deserves would also help society shift its limited perception of non-human animals as beings who are owned to beings who can own. Recently, three rivers were given the same legal status as humans, and corporations have been enjoying the rights of personhood since 2010. If rivers and businesses have rights, then surely animals deserve no less.

Jeffrey S.Kerr Washington, D.C.

Kerr is general counsel and senior vice president of corporate affairs for PETA Foundation.