July 29, 2017

To: Majul U. Gandamra

32 N. Domingo St.

Brgy. Valencia, Quezon City

Dear Mr. Gandamra,

Here is the opinion you requested. The facts, as I gathered from

you and your documents, are as follows:

In 2008, David Slater, a British photographer went to Indonesia to

take photographs of critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. To
take the pictures of crested macaque, Slater then followed the group of
crested macaque for several days and tried to gain their trust. On the first
few days Slater had problems obtaining close-up shots of the monkeys
faces for they appeared apprehensive whenever the camera is near them.
On the following day, Slater set up his camera on a tripod and purposely
left it with the crested macaques for them to gain access with the camera.
Slater then moved away then the crested macaque started playing with
camera like a toy, pressing the buttons, exploring the thing. Then one
female crested macaque pressed the trigger remote and took several
pictures. Most of the images were unusable, some were blurry, but some
photographs were clear which Slater then used and distributed as 'Monkey
Selfie'. Slater licensed the photo to the Caters New Agency, under the
presumption that he held copyright to the photo; Slater claimed that he
engineered the shot and it required his knowledge for the photos to be
taken.

In September 2015, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

(PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater, requesting that the monkey be
assigned coopyright and that PETA be appointed to administer poroceeds
from the photos for the endangered species' benefit.

The question you pose is whether or not, under the above facts,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can sue David Slater in
behalf of an animal.

In my opinion, since the creator of the photgraph is an animal and not

a person, there is no copyright of the photograph regardless of who owns
the equipment being used. Because in the first place the animal itself is
incapacitated and does not even have juridical capacity. Copyright laws
here in the Philippines do not cover animals but only extend to authors who
are natural persons which in law is recognized as a legal entity having
distinct identity, legal personality, duties and rights. Even if PETA argues
that the animal is under their protection, that arguement would be unstable
for the animal was not abused in any way.

I base my opinion from the Philippine Laws as stated below:

Part IV: The Law of Copyright, Chapter 1: Preliminary Previsions

Sec. 171.1. "Author" is the natural person who has created the work.

Chapter III: Conservation and Protection of Wildlife Resources

Article 1: General Provision, Section 6. Wildlife Information. - All activities,

as subsequently manifested under this Chapter, shall be authorized by the
Secretary upon proper evaluation of best available information or scientific
data showing that the activity is, or for a purpose, not detrimental to the
survival of the species or subspecies involved and/or their habitat. For this
purpose, the Secretary shall regularly update wildlife information through
research.

Article 2: Protection of Threatened Species, Section 23. Collection of

Threatened Wildlife, By-products and Derivatives - The collection of
threatened wildlife, as determined and listed pursuant to this Act, including
its by-products and derivatives, shall be allowed only for scientific, or
breeding or propagation purposes in accordance with Section 6 of this Act:
Provided, That only the accredited individuals, business, research,
educational or scientific entities shall be allowed to collect for conservation
breeding or propagation purposes.

Article 37, Persons Book I of the Civil Code of the Philippines - Juridical
capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, 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.
(n)
Article 40, Chapter I Natural Persons - Birth determines personality; but the
conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable
to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following
article. (29a)

References:
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. (1998). Reference list: Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines. Retrieved from:
http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7copyright.htm#.WXtlxYiGOUk

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. (1998). Reference list: Civil Code of the
Philippines. Retrieved from:
http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook1.htm

Congress of The Philippines. (July 30, 2001). Reference list: Republic act
no. 9147. Retrieved from:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9147_2001.html

Chris Cheesman (July 5, 2011). "Ape-rture priority photographer plays

down monkey reports". Amateur Photographer. Retrieved from:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/ape-rture-priority-
photographer-plays-down-monkey-reports-16224.

Laurent, Olivier (6 August 2014). "Monkey Selfie Lands Photographer in

Legal Quagmire". Time. Time Inc. Archived from the original on 14 August
2014. Retrieved from: http://time.com/100488/monkey-
selfie/?iid=lfaround#1

Kravets, David (6 January 2016). "Judge says monkey cannot own

copyright to famous selfies". Ars Technica. Retrieved from:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/judge-says-monkey-cannot-
own-copyright-to-famous-selfies/