July 27, 2017

Francisco V. Deleon
4 Baguio Rd. Philam Homes
Quezon City, Philippines 1104

Dear Mr. Deleon:

Here is the opinion that you requested.

The facts I have gathered are as follows:

Back in 2011, David Slater, a British nature photographer traveled

to Sulawesi, Indonesia, and spent several days following and
photographing a group of macaques. He teaches these monkeys on how
to operate the shutter while facing the camera lens. After a few tries, he
was able to get two self photographs, otherwise known as selfies from
the monkeys, specifically the monkey named Naruto. Narutos toothy
grin selfie had captured the hearts of many. Slater passed his
photographs to his company called Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and the
latter included them in its published book titled Wildlife Personalities.
Slater earned 2,000 for the first year after its release. But since
Wikimedia Commons started using the photos without consent, causing
damages to his career. Slater asked Wikimedia Commons to either pay
for his photos or take down the photo from their website. Wikimedia
alleged that Slater had no copyright on the photos. Years after, the
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Slater and
claimed that all proceeds from the photos should have been in benefit of
the monkey. They believed that they have legal standing in behalf of the
monkey. As the latter owned the copyrights of the picture because he is
the one who took it, it just so happen that Slater owned the camera.
However, The US Copyright Office subsequently ruled that animals
could not own copyrights. The one consolation for Slater is that he
believes that his photograph had helped to save the crested black
macaque from extinction as the impoverished locals used to shoot or eat
macaques.

The big question in the case is whether or not People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can sue the photographer for and
in behalf of the monkey for copyright infringement.

In my opinion, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

(PETA) cannot sue Slater in behalf of Naruto because Naruto cannot be
considered as the author of the photographs. Even if the monkey on its
own, pressed the shutter button of the camera. There are two laws that
we could consider on this case. First, Under Part IV Section 171.1 of RA
8293 also known as The Law On Copyright, an author is a natural

1
person who has created the work. The term natural person refers to a
living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the
law. Naruto, obviously, doesnt fall into the category of natural person.
Moreover, PETA has no power to sue in behalf of their principal
(Naruto), because Naruto has no juridical capacity to do so. Second,
under Article 37 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, juridical capacity is
the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, which is inherent in every
natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is
the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.

Based on the facts and laws relevant stated, I believe that Slater
has the copyright to the photographs wherein Naruto is the main
subject. First and foremost, he was the one who had the overall
intellectual contributions to the product, from the lighting and settings
up to the background and printing of the images. He allotted a lot of
effort, patience, and hard work in accomplishing his goal. Through his
hard work, he was able to gain the trust of the monkeys to cooperate
with him. His primary intent was inherently good as well, which is to
save the crested black macaque from extinction. I also believe, that
Naruto was not harmed in any way as a result of this issue. In fact, his
family was somewhat saved because of the pictures as tourists now
want to see them. The locals as well were stopped from shooting or
eating them. The local tourism also bloomed because of this viral
photograph.

This, however, is only a personal legal opinion to give you an

insight about the case. Our judicial system will still have its last say
about this matter. Should you have any requests or questions, please let
me know.

Yours truly,
Princess Angela L. Deleon, CPA

References:
Wang, L. (2017, July 13). Naruto's Monkey Selfie Heads to Appeals
Court Over Copyright. Retrieved from
http://time.com/4856490/naruto-monkey-selfie-case-appeals-
court
Fryer, J. (2017, July 22). How this magical monkey selfie ruined
my life: British wildlife photographer says image published 50
million times cost him his life savings and marked the end of his
award-winning career. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4719674/Wildlife-
photographer-says-famous-monkey-selfie-ruined-him.html
Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes. (2017,
April 12). Retrieved July 27, 2017, from
https://legaldictionary.net/natural-person/