The Monkey Selfie Copyright Case, Explained

The monkey selfie copyright dispute asked whether an animal could own a photograph. US courts did not recognise animal authorship. Nepal has no reported ruling on the question, but the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) points to human authorship and human copyright ownership.

Key Takeaways

• The Naruto copyright case concerned a crested macaque that triggered a camera and appeared in its own photograph.
• The US litigation did not establish that Naruto owned copyright; it ended without a court granting copyright to the monkey.
• Nepal copyright law protects original works created by an author, and the Act does not recognise animals as copyright authors.
• A person may still own a photograph triggered by an animal if human choices shaped the camera, scene, composition, or final work.
• Copyright is separate from trademark registration: copyright protects creative expression, while a trademark identifies business goods or services.
• Registration is optional for copyright, but records, drafts, source files, and agreements can help prove ownership.
• Creators should avoid calling a work “copyright-free” simply because an animal, tool, or automated device pressed the shutter.

What happened in the monkey selfie copyright case?

The dispute began after a crested macaque in Indonesia used wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera and captured several images. One became famous as the “monkey selfie”. The image spread online, including through Wikimedia Commons, while Slater argued that his work setting up the equipment supported his claim to copyright.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) brought a US case naming the macaque Naruto. PETA sought to represent the animal and manage any proceeds for macaque conservation. The case raised two separate questions: whether Naruto could bring a copyright claim, and whether Slater or another person owned rights in the photograph.

What did the US courts decide in the Naruto copyright case?

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Naruto could not sue under the US Copyright Act. The court treated animals as outside the statutory category of persons entitled to bring that copyright action. The litigation later settled, but no judgment declared Naruto the copyright owner or created a general animal copyright rule.

That distinction matters. Headlines often say the court “ruled on the monkey’s copyright”. More accurately, the case rejected the animal’s ability to bring the claim. It did not provide a complete ruling on every possible copyright interest Slater might have claimed through his human contribution.

Does Nepal copyright law recognise animal authorship?

Nepal’s Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) does not provide a route for an animal to be an author or copyright owner. Its structure assumes a work is created by an author, and copyright administration is carried out through human applicants and legally recognised entities. A Nepali court would need to consider the Act’s wording, not simply copy the US result.

The safer legal conclusion is practical rather than absolute: an animal cannot register, assign, enforce, or manage copyright as a legal owner under the current Nepal framework. The Copyright Registrar’s Office has no ordinary process for recording a monkey, dog, or other animal as an author. Animal welfare or conservation interests may still receive money through a human or organisational arrangement, but that is not animal authorship.

Nepal’s Copyright Act is distinct from the Patent, Design and Trademark Act 1965, which governs industrial property through the Department of Industry. The Nepal Law Commission’s legal materials are a useful starting point for checking the governing statutes. This article explains general principles, not a legal opinion on a disputed photograph.

Who owns a photograph triggered by an animal?

Ownership depends on human creative contribution, the facts of creation, and any contract between the people involved. Pressing the shutter is one physical act, but it may not be the only relevant act. Camera choice, lens, location, lighting, timing, composition, direction, editing, and selection can show human skill and judgement.

Imagine a Nepali wildlife photographer places a camera trap, chooses its settings, selects the location, and later edits and publishes the image. The animal may trigger the device, but the photographer can argue that the final photograph came from human creative decisions. The result is fact-sensitive; it should not be presented as an automatic rule.

The position is different if a monkey finds an unattended camera, changes its settings, frames the scene, and takes an image without meaningful human creative input. The photograph may lack a human author. That does not automatically mean a named person owns it. It may mean copyright protection does not arise in the ordinary way.

What does originality mean for Nepali creators?

Originality means a work comes from the author rather than being copied. It does not require a photograph to be famous, beautiful, or completely new. A modest image can qualify if it reflects sufficient human skill, labour, or judgement. The World Intellectual Property Organization’s copyright resources provide useful international context, but Nepal’s own Act controls a Nepalese dispute.

For a photographer, originality may appear in the decision to wait for a particular moment, use a certain angle, arrange the subject, control exposure, or make deliberate edits. A camera trap does not remove human authorship by itself. Nor does a model pressing a remote button automatically become the owner if the photographer directed the creative work.

How is copyright ownership proved in Nepal?

Copyright protection generally arises when an original work is created and fixed, rather than only after registration. Nepal’s Copyright Act permits registration, and registration can create a useful record of the claimant, date, work, and supporting documents. It does not turn an animal into an author or replace the need to show genuine human authorship.

Keep the original files, RAW images, drafts, metadata, project notes, camera settings, invoices, publishing records, and agreements with assistants or clients. If several people contributed, record who selected the concept, directed the shoot, edited the work, and commissioned it. Written assignments and employment terms can prevent a later argument about copyright ownership Nepal.

How should a creator protect a disputed photograph?

A creator should preserve the work, identify the human contributors, and record the creative process before a dispute starts. Copyright registration may help establish a dated administrative record, while contracts clarify ownership between photographers, clients, employees, assistants, and agencies. The right response depends on whether the issue is proof, licensing, copying, or enforcement.

1. Preserve the source. Keep original files, camera data, drafts, and the first reliable publication record.
2. Write down the process. Record who chose the equipment, location, lighting, timing, composition, and final edits.
3. Check agreements. Review employment, commission, collaboration, assignment, and licence terms before making an ownership claim.
4. Consider registration. If the work has commercial value, ask the Copyright Registrar’s Office about the available registration process and supporting documents.
5. Respond carefully to copying. Gather evidence first, then seek tailored advice before sending a demand or starting a proceeding.

IP Sewa’s copyright registration guide for Nepal explains the separate copyright system in more detail. Photographers and artists can also review the practical guidance on copyright for photographers, artists, and designers.

How is copyright different from trademark protection in Nepal?

Copyright protects an original creative work such as a photograph, illustration, film, song, or text. A trademark protects a word, logo, symbol, or combination that distinguishes goods or services. A business may need both: copyright for its logo artwork and trademark registration for the sign used to identify its products or services.

Trademark rights in Nepal arise through registration with the Department of Industry, not merely because a business used a name first. The process includes examination, Industrial Property Bulletin publication, a 90-day opposition period, and registration. Copyright and trademark questions should therefore be kept separate, even when they involve the same logo or image.

What should Nepali creators learn from the case?

The central lesson is not that every person near a camera owns the resulting image. It is that ownership follows the legally relevant creative contribution, supported by evidence. A person who plans, directs, captures, edits, or selects a work may have a stronger claim than someone who performs only a mechanical action.

The case also warns against importing a foreign headline into Nepal without checking local law. Nepal’s Copyright Act, 2059 (2002), the Copyright Registrar’s practice, contracts, and the facts of creation all matter. There is no reported Nepali animal-authorship judgment identified here, so a precise legal conclusion should be framed as an analysis, not a claimed court ruling.

Practical rule: If an animal, camera trap, assistant, or automated tool played a role, preserve evidence of the human decisions that shaped the final work. That record may matter more than who physically pressed the button.

How long does the legal question usually take to resolve?

There is no fixed Nepal timeline for a copyright ownership dispute. A registration record may be prepared before conflict, while a contested claim can depend on notices, evidence, settlement, or court proceedings. This differs from trademark registration at the Department of Industry, which typically takes about 12–14 months when unopposed.

What is the short answer on monkey selfie copyright?

Animals are not recognised as copyright authors under Nepal’s current framework. The Naruto copyright case supports that practical conclusion, but it did not decide every ownership question about the photograph. A human may own a picture triggered by an animal when human creative decisions shaped the work. Keep records, separate copyright from trademarks, and obtain advice before making a disputed claim.

People also search for

• How to register copyright in Nepal
• Copyright registration process in Nepal
• Copyright for photographers, artists, and designers in Nepal
• Copyright for AI-generated content in Nepal
• Copyright infringement laws in Nepal
• Copyright versus trademark in Nepal

If you need help recording creative ownership, reviewing an agreement, or protecting a brand separately, contact the IP Sewa team. You can also explore our Nepal IP services and use the free IP tools for an initial check.