03_GOSSIP_47_ING

MONKEY SELFIE CASE
If animals take photographs of themselves,
can they have copyrights over those
photographs? The result of the Monkey Selfie
case may be the very answer to this question.
DELAYED DESIGN APPLICATION PUTS
REGISTRATION OF CROCS IN JEOPARDY!
Judges in Luxembourg have affirmed the decision
taken in 2016 by the European Union
Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the
annulment of registration of Crocs sandals.
David Slater who is a nature photographer,
left his camera on the tripod and walked
away out in the jungles of Indonesia where
he went to take photographs of a group of
macaque monkeys in 2011. As he walked
away, one of the monkeys approached
and took a photograph of himself. Slater
published these photographs by naming
them “Monkey Selfie” which attracted a
great deal of attention on the internet.
However, things changed after these
photographs were used on the website
named “Wikimedia Commons”.
Slater requested the photographs to be
removed from the website by stating that
the copyright of the photographs belonged
to him. However, Wikimedia rejected this
request by stating that Slater was not the
one who took the photographs, but the
monkey.
Following this event, PETA (People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a case
in the name of the monkey against the
photographer in 2015. PETA requested
that the copyright of the photographs
should have been given to the animal by
claiming that the photographs were taken
by the monkey. However, the judge rejected
the request, stating that the case cannot be
sustained on the grounds of the fact that
the animals do not have capability to file a
copyright infringement case even though it
was the monkey who took the photograph
without the help of the photographer.
Even though PETA objected the court’s
decision, later on the parties came to an
agreement. According to the agreement,
one fourth of the total income earned
through the photographs will be donated to macaque
monkeys of Indonesia.
However, this agreement did not affect the court’s
decision and the copyright of the photographs was not
given to the monkey in the end.
This case that could be considered as the first in its field
may constitute an example for the similar ones that may
occur in the future. Regardless of the result, it can be said
that an important step was taken in terms of protecting
legal rights of animals thanks to this interesting case.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) stated
that aforementioned sandals made a debut for the first time
during a boat show in Florida in the year of 2002 and were
featured in the website of the company and consequently
Crocs was late to submit their design application in 2004.
In accordance with the EU laws, the designs can only be
protected by means of a design application within 12 months
at most after being released to the public. After the lapse of
this period, the right of the design application is foreclosed.
The course which led to the annulment of Crocs’ designs
started with the filing of an allegation to the EUIPO by a
French retailer who stated that Crocs’ designs could not be
protected. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),
therefore, affirmed the demand relating to annulment on the
account of the fact that anyone could have had access to the
aforementioned design prior to the application.
With more than 300 million of products sold worldwide and
being favored by the world famous stars and presidents,
Crocs now has 2 months to appeal to the subject matter case.
However, no statements have been made by Crocs so far,
regarding whether they will appeal to the case or not.
By means of this decision, the fact that designers need to
acquire their design registrations before marketing their
product if possible or shortly after their products have been
marketed, has been emphasized once again.
adsoftheworld / Agency Network: McKinney
6 AGENDA
7