In 2011, a crested macaque in Indonesia pressed a photographer's camera shutter and captured a grinning selfie that would ignite a global legal firestorm: can a non-human own a copyright? Courts in the United States said no — animals lack standing under the Copyright Act. The case never reached Nepal, but it forces a clear look at what Nepal's own Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) says about authorship, originality, and who truly holds the rights.
Key Takeaways
- The monkey selfie dispute (Naruto v. Slater) confirmed under US law that non-humans cannot own copyright; Nepal's Act leads to the same conclusion.
- Nepal's Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) grants authorship only to a "person" — a natural human or a legally recognised entity.
- Copyright arises automatically when an original work is created; registration with the Nepal Copyright Registrar's Office is optional but valuable for proof.
- A photographer does not lose authorship just because an animal presses the button — the creative choices before and after the shot still matter.
- The case is a powerful lens for understanding what "originality" and "authorship" really mean in Nepali copyright law.
- Practical takeaway: document your creative process, and for commercially critical work, register it.
What actually happened in the monkey selfie case?
British wildlife photographer David Slater was photographing crested macaques in Sulawesi, Indonesia, when one of the animals grabbed his camera and took several photos, including the now-famous grinning selfie. Slater published the image, and it went viral. Wikimedia Commons hosted the photo, arguing it was in the public domain because a monkey — not a human — pressed the shutter. Slater claimed ownership through his creative contribution in setting up the equipment. Then the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued on behalf of the monkey, named Naruto, seeking to have the copyright assigned to the macaque for the benefit of the species.
How did the courts rule?
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2018 that Naruto, the crested macaque, lacked statutory standing to sue under the US Copyright Act. The court was blunt: animals are not "persons" entitled to bring a copyright claim. The case ultimately settled, with Slater agreeing to donate 25 percent of future revenue to charities protecting crested macaques, but no court ever declared the monkey a copyright owner. The ruling stands as a clear line: copyright law, as written, requires a human author.
Who is an "author" under Nepal's Copyright Act?
Nepal's Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) defines an author as the person who creates a work. Throughout the Act, it consistently refers to a "person" — a natural human being or a legally recognised body. Section 2 defines "author" and "work" in terms that assume human creativity. There is no provision anywhere in the Act that extends authorship to animals. If a monkey in a Nepali temple grabbed a tourist's camera and snapped a photo, the monkey would have no legal standing. The Copyright Registrar's Office, which administers copyright registration in Nepal, simply has no mechanism to register a non-human as an author. The law relies on the settled legal meaning of a person, which excludes animals.
Does the photographer still own a photo taken by an animal?
This is the more interesting question. The monkey pressed the button, but the photographer chose the camera, the lens, the settings, the location, and the framing. In many legal systems, those creative choices are the "originality" that copyright protects. The UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, for example, grants copyright to the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. Nepal's Act does not have that exact phrase, but the principle aligns: originality flows from human intellectual effort. If a Nepali photographer intentionally set up a camera trap with artistic choices in lighting and composition, the resulting image would almost certainly be considered their original work, even if the animal triggered the shutter. A common mistake we see is thinking the finger on the button is all that matters — it isn't. The creative mind behind the image does.
What does "originality" really mean in Nepal?
Originality under Nepal's Copyright Act does not demand novelty or artistic merit. It means the work must originate from the author — it must be independently created through some minimal degree of human skill, labour, and judgement. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) frameworks that inform Nepal's approach treat originality as a threshold requirement, not a high bar. A photograph taken by a monkey with zero human involvement fails this threshold because there is no human intellectual effort at all. A photograph set up by a human but triggered by an animal arguably passes, because the framing, exposure, and moment were all chosen by the person. The Copyright Registrar's Office will not typically interrogate the creative origins of a photograph during optional registration — registration is administrative, not a substantive examination like the Department of Industry conducts for trademarks — but if a dispute ever reached a Nepali court, this is exactly the analysis it would apply.
Would a Nepali court follow the Naruto ruling?
Nepal's courts are not bound by US precedent, but they do look to persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, especially on questions of first impression. The principle that only a human can be an author is so foundational to copyright law globally that it is hard to imagine a Nepali court reaching a different conclusion. The Copyright Act repeatedly uses the word "person" — a term courts interpret against Nepal's General Code (Muluki Ain) and constitutional framework, which do not extend legal personhood to animals for intellectual property purposes. Our team at IP Sewa has seen no reported judgment in Nepal addressing animal authorship, and the question remains theoretical. But the legal reasoning is straightforward: no human author, no copyright.
Why the case still matters for Nepali photographers and creators
The monkey selfie case is not just a legal oddity — it sharpens a practical point that affects real creative work. Photographers, videographers, and designers in Nepal routinely use camera traps, motion-triggered setups, time-lapse rigs, or even hand their equipment to a subject who presses the button. The key question is always the same: did a human make the creative decisions? If a Nepali wedding photographer hands a camera to a child who accidentally takes a beautiful, candid shot, the photographer still owns the copyright if they set the exposure, composed the scene, and directed the moment. If the child independently took the camera and created the photo with no adult creative input, the child — a human — is the author. The animal fails because it is not a person; the child succeeds because, under Nepal's Act, age is not a bar to authorship, though a guardian would manage any commercial exploitation.
| Scenario | Author under Nepal's Copyright Act | Protected? |
|---|---|---|
| Monkey grabs unattended camera, takes photo | None — no human author | No — public domain |
| Photographer sets camera on tripod, monkey triggers shutter | Photographer (creative choices are theirs) | Yes |
| Photographer hands camera to assistant who composes and shoots | The assistant (human who made the creative decisions) | Yes |
| AI generates an image from a text prompt with no further human editing | Unsettled in Nepal; likely the human prompter if enough creative input | Arguable — see our guide on AI-generated content |
What is the legal basis for copyright protection in Nepal?
Nepal's copyright framework rests on the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002), administered by the Copyright Registrar's Office. Unlike trademarks, which require registration with the Department of Industry to create the right, copyright protection is automatic — it exists from the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium. Registration is optional under Section 25 of the Act but serves as strong prima facie evidence in an infringement dispute. The Act protects literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works, including photographs. Nepal is a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement through its WTO membership, which obligates it to maintain minimum standards of copyright protection, and follows the Berne Convention principles through TRIPS incorporation, including the rule that protection must not require any formality. For a deeper comparison of how copyright stacks up against other IP rights, our copyright-vs-trademark guide walks through the practical differences.
Does registration change the outcome in an authorship dispute?
Registering a copyright with the Copyright Registrar's Office does not create the right — it records it. If you register a photograph, you are certifying that you are the author. If a dispute later arises and it turns out a monkey took the photo, registration would not magically grant you ownership. But for more common disputes — who employed whom, who made the creative choices, whether a work was made for hire — registration is powerful. It shifts the burden of proof to the challenger. For photographers worried about the monkey selfie scenario, the real lesson is to document your process. Keep raw files, notes, and evidence of your creative decisions. Our team can help you navigate copyright registration and advise on building a strong ownership record; reach out through our contact page.
A realistic example: the trail camera in Shivapuri
Imagine a wildlife photographer in Nepal sets up a motion-triggered camera in Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park to capture a leopard. The camera is positioned on a tripod, the exposure is set for the dusk light, and the composition frames a game trail against a specific rock. A leopard walks by and triggers the shutter. The leopard is the direct physical cause of the photo, just like the macaque was — but the copyright unquestionably belongs to the photographer. Now imagine a monkey finds the same camera, pulls it off the tripod, and accidentally takes a blurry photo of its own foot while the photographer is miles away. That second image has no human creative input — no framing, no moment chosen by a person — and under Nepal's Copyright Act, it likely has no author and no protection. The difference between the two is the photographer's creative presence.
Common mistakes people make about this case
A common mistake we see is assuming that whoever presses the shutter owns the copyright. Copyright law does not work that way. Another is believing that if no human presses the button, the work is automatically public domain everywhere — the UK's rule on "arrangements" shows that is not universal. A third is thinking the Naruto case is legally significant precedent in Nepal; it is persuasive at best, and Nepal's own Act reaches the same result through its own language. Finally, many creators assume that because copyright is automatic, they do not need to document anything — a dangerous position if a dispute ever arises.
Copyright vs. trademark: a frequent confusion
After the monkey selfie went viral, some merchandise used the image on t-shirts and mugs. That implicates a different area of law entirely. Copyright protects the photo as a creative work. A trademark protects a brand name, logo, or sign used in commerce to distinguish goods — you register it with the Department of Industry under the Patent, Design and Trademark Act, 1965, following publication in the Industrial Property Bulletin. A photo cannot be "trademarked" unless it functions as a brand identifier in trade. For more on the intersection, our guide on copyright for photographers and designers covers this ground in detail, and our trademark registration service explains the separate process for brand protection.
In short, the monkey selfie case is memorable precisely because it makes us ask what authorship really means. Under Nepal's Copyright Act, the answer is reassuringly clear: a human being must create the work. The moment a person makes creative choices — even if an animal or a machine triggers the final capture — copyright exists. The case is a vivid reminder for Nepali creators to think intentionally about authorship, document their creative process, and register their most valuable works.
Want to see if a mark is already on file? Search the trademark database — it is free and fast. When you're ready to protect your creative or commercial work, contact our team, or explore our IP tools to check classes, deadlines, and more.
People also search for:
- How to register a copyright in Nepal
- Copyright registration process in Nepal, step by step
- Copyright guide for photographers, artists, and designers in Nepal
- Who owns AI-generated content under Nepal's copyright law?
- Copyright infringement laws and remedies in Nepal
- Copyright vs. trademark in Nepal: key differences
- How long does copyright protection last in Nepal?
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Replying to — cancel