When a monkey takes a selfie, who owns it?

Adding to the foregoing, PETA added that all the proceeds from the sale, licensing or any other commercial use of the Monkey Selfies should be used for the benefit of Naruto, his family, his community and for the betterment of his surroundings.

But now the animal rights nonprofit organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is arguing that the copyright should go to the animal, and has filed a lawsuit in USA federal court in San Francisco against Slater and his company Wildlife Personalities Ltd.

Mr Englehardt is a scientist who has known, monitored and studied the monkey since his birth.

The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi by British nature photographer David Slater.

PETA is trying to erase the line between human rights and animal “rights”, because PETA is made up of deeply dishonest, radical freaks.

PETA’s logic, clearly stated in the plaint, is that if the photo was taken by a human he would be allowed to claim authorship over the photograph and be entitled to all benefits from the copyright in it. They further assert that “under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq“.

PETA is suing a photographer on behalf of a monkey that took a selfie with the photographer’s camera in 2011.

While PETA claims the monkey has the copyright to the selfie, Wikimedia claims no one does.

‘I now have one corporation wanting my images to have no copyright, and another who wishes the copyright belongs to them (via the monkey)’.

Last year, as the dispute simmered, Slater offered copies of a “monkey selfie” photo to purchasers willing to pay only for shipping and handling, and said he would donate $1.70 per order to a conservation project dedicated to protecting Sulawesi’s macaques. “It also wants the authority to administer and protect Naruto’s authorship rights”.

Legal analyst Danny Cevallos tells CNN that because the monkey can’t create copyrightable work, “that work can never be copyrightable”.

Slater said on his Facebook page that he believes both PETA and Wikimedia are wrong about the photo.

Still, PETA appears to be pursuing this seriously, writing that if the lawsuit succeeds it has helped change history by making it the first time an animal is named the owner of property and is not just a piece of property themselves.

“I was lying down at the time with at least two macaque juveniles on my back and nursing a few bruises from a male who had whacked me several times all over in the belief that I was a challenge to his females”.