It’s an interesting case that refuses to die. Described by NPR as “the legal saga of the monkey selfie,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick just issued a provisional opinion that a macaque named Naruto can’t legally copyright some selfies he snapped in a nature reserve in 2011.

The pictures in question do have all the attributes of a selfie.

Judge rules on whether monkey owns rights to famous “monkey selfie” photographs https://t.co/b6vY3jDLiupic.twitter.com/bSNKXtdivi

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 7, 2016

They were taken with wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera, in a wildlife reservation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. However, Slater wasn’t the one who “took” the pictures, Naruto did. PETA, who filed the lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, claimed that the monkey knew what he was doing. The lawsuit argues that Naruto had seen guests to the reserve taking photos, and that his actions included “purposely pushing the shutter release multiple times (and) understanding the cause-and-effect relationship between pressing the shutter release, the noise of the shutter, and the change to his reflection in the camera lens.”

But Slater claims that he has the rights to the pictures, and that he was holding onto the tripod while Naruto took the photos. He used it in a 2014 book of wildlife photography, and has a British copyright license for it. But some media sites, including Wikipedia, have argued that the photos are public domain because no one owns the copyright.

But despite all that confusion, one thing is clear: Orrick wasn’t going to let PETA get away with filing a copyright on behalf of a monkey. Although a formal opinion will be issued by the judge later, he did issue a provisional opinion Wednesday. Orrick stated: “while Congress and the President can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.” On that note, the U.S. Copyright Office has actually officially started listing “a photograph taken by a monkey” as something that specifically cannot be copyrighted. 

So, it doesn’t seem like we’ll be seeing an influx of monkey (or for that matter, other animal) copyrights anytime soon. But since monkeys can apparently take selfies, maybe this is a law that Congress will need to consider changing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Monkeys Can’t Copyright Selfies…Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Medical School has been slapped with fines of $24,036 for violating the Animal Welfare Act.The Animal Welfare Act originated in 1966 and includes provisions to protect the rights and treatment of animals in research facilities. Since 2011, four of their research monkeys have died. These were not expected cases of research running its course, and the monkeys dying of diseases for which cures were attempting to be found. Instead, these cases seemed to be more clear-cut instances of neglect. One monkey died after a lab worker overdosed it with anesthetic. Another two monkeys died from lack of hydration. And a fourth was strangled after a toy attached to its cage wrapped around its neck.

After a lengthy investigation by the USDA, eleven separate violations were found. Not all of these fines were in relation to the treatment of those four monkeys, but included charges that workers who had not been properly trained were allowed to handle the animals. All of the violations occurred at a Harvard Medical School Research Lab in Southborough MA, called the New England Primate Research Center. Harvard Medical School does have another lab, in Boston. Because of personnel problems, financial issues, and other reasons, Harvard Medical School has actually vowed to shut down the Southborough research facility, but keep the smaller Boston lab that also deals with primate research, open.

Each of the eleven violations that were found could have warranted a $10,000 fine, but Harvard Medical School got off relatively easily with a fine of $24,036. They received a lesser fine because many of the violations had been previously disclosed, and because they took effort to mitigate the problems that had been discovered. Harvard Medical School officials stated they believed their fine was lessened because of the “excellent work of those members of our community who took aggressive action to institute rigorous quality improvements that benefit animal safety and welfare”.

The fine is relatively unusual. There are about 1,300 licensed animal research facilities around the country, all of which are held to the Animal Welfare Act. While investigators often find small violations, the facilities are usually just censured because the violations are usually not as egregious as what happened at Harvard Medical School. In the past three years, only eight research facilities have been been fined. Five of those eight violations have been for mistreatment of primates.

Although the fine seems like a lot, animal activists have pointed out that it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough. For a research facility the size of Harvard, $24,036 won’t make too much of a dent. A PETA spokesman pointed out that Harvard Medical School receives $185 million in taxpayer-funded grants alone, and about half of those go to research. Animal rights activists have also pointed out that a few years ago, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette was fined almost $40,000 for three primate deaths arising out of just two incidents.

We need to test on animals, that’s nothing new. In an ideal world, we would not have to, but that’s just not a point to which our science has progressed at this period in time. But it is hard to excuse a case that seems like pretty straightforward neglect. The Animal Welfare Act was put in place to prevent things like animals dying because of a mistake like an errant toy, or lack of water. And while I usually find organizations such as PETA to be a bit heavy-handed, in this case I think they’re right. The fine to Harvard Medical School will just be a slap on the wrist, at best.

I’ve written a few articles on sentencing being too harsh for individuals, but in this case, I think the opposite is true. If the Animal Welfare Act is going to be enacted against large institution facilities, it needs to be guarantee a harsher sentence than what Harvard Medical School received.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim Ankan Deka via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Medical School Violates Animal Welfare Act appeared first on Law Street.