While Naruto didn't win the legal right to own the famous monkey selfies, he can thump his chest in a victory of sorts.
The entire ordeal came about when Naruto took a number of photographs of himself using Slater's camera.
David Slater was left so broke he was considering becoming a dog walkerHow did the macaque take the photograph?
Attorneys for the group and the photographer, David Slater, on Monday asked the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower-court decision that said animals can not own copyrights.
PETA filed the suit in 2015, and early previous year, U.S. District Judge William Orrick wrote in a tentative opinion that there was "no indication" that the U.S. Copyright Act extended to animals.
Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll 'surprised' by poor offensive line play
The drive would stall there, however, and kicker Blair Walsh sent the teams to halftime with Seattle up 3-0 after the field goal. Seattle was unable to stop Green Bay's four-man rushes, forcing Wilson to be on the move nearly every time he attempted a pass.
PETA asked the court to dismiss the case, if Slater would agree to pay 25 percent of any any income generated by the picture to charities that protect crested macaques in Indonesia.
"The dire need of Naruto is what fully underpins why we pursued this lawsuit to begin with", Mr. Kerr said in an interview.
Its argument that since Naruto pressed the shutter button, the monkey should own the copyright and not Slater, led to a copyrights dispute. Slater and Blurb persuaded U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California that animals have no standing to assert copyright authorship under Ninth Circuit law. A three-judge board of the ninth Circuit heard oral contentions for the situation in July.
"Not only did I raise money for the conservation project, through canvas sales kindly donated by Picanova and direct print sales, but I helped the group to promote a new code of ethics when visiting these macaques in Sulawesi". The 9th Circuit was considering PETA's appeal.
Some people said that they could use the picture without anyone's permission, because it was taken by a monkey - not a person.