FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
N
ARUTO
, a Crested Macaque, by andthrough his Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
,v.D
AVID
J
OHN
S
LATER
;
B
LURB
,
I
NC
., aDelaware corporation; W
ILDLIFE
P
ERSONALITIES
,
L
TD
., a UnitedKingdom private limited company,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15469D.C. No.3:15-cv-04324-WHOOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of CaliforniaWilliam Horsley Orrick, District Judge, PresidingArgued and Submitted July 12, 2017San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled April 23, 2018Before: Carlos T. Bea and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges,and Eduardo C. Robreno,
*
District Judge.
*
The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
"#$%& '()'*+(,- .+/01/0.'2- 34& '.2+*22'- 4567869:& (0)'- ;#<% ' => +'
!" $% &'(
N
ARUTO V
.
S
LATER
2Opinion by Judge Bea;Concurrence by Judge N.R. Smith
SUMMARY
**
Copyright / Standing
Affirming the district court’s dismissal of claims brought by a monkey, the panel held that the animal had constitutionalstanding but lacked statutory standing to claim copyrightinfringement of photographs known as the “Monkey Selfies.” The panel held that the complaint included facts sufficientto establish Article III standing because it alleged that themonkey was the author and owner of the photographs and hadsuffered concrete and particularized economic harms. The panel concluded that the monkey’s Article III standing wasnot dependent on the sufficiency of People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals, Inc., as a guardian or “next friend.” The panel held that the monkey lacked statutory standing because the Copyright Act does not expressly authorizeanimals to file copyright infringement suits. The panel granted appellees’ request for an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal.Concurring in part, Judge N.R. Smith wrote that theappeal should be dismissed and the district court’s judgment
**
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
"#$%& '()'*+(,- .+/01/0.'2- 34& '.2+*22'- 4567869:& (0)'- ;#<% 0 => +'
!) $% &'(
N
ARUTO V
.
S
LATER
3on the merits should be vacated because the federal courtslacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Disagreeing with themajority’s conclusion that next-friend standing isnonjurisdictional, Judge Smith wrote that PETA’s failure tomeet the requirements for next-friend standing removed jurisdiction of the court.
COUNSEL
David A. Schwarz (argued), Irell & Manella LLP, LosAngeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.Andrew J. Dhuey (argued), Berkeley, California, for Defendants-Appellees David John Slater and WildlifePersonalities, Ltd.Angela Dunning (argued), Jacqueline B. Kort, Kyle C. Wong,Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto,California, for Defendant-Appellee Blurb, Inc.Justin Marceau, Denver, Colorado; Corey Page, SanFrancisco, California; for Amicus Curiae Agustin Fuentes.
"#$%& '()'*+(,- .+/01/0.'2- 34& '.2+*22'- 4567869:& (0)'- ;#<% 1 => +'
!* $% &'(