( CNN ) -- Selfies are everywhere . Even Indonesian macaques are getting into the game . In 2011 , two of these Old World monkeys borrowed photographer David J. Slater 's camera and reportedly snapped some pictures of themselves . One of the selfies by a female macaque has since gone viral , making its way to Wikipedia 's free-to-use website . Slater asked the site to take down the photo , but Wikipedia asserts the photo is uncopyrightable because animals ca n't own copyrights . It raises two interesting questions : . First , can a monkey even acquire copyright in a selfie ? Second , can a human acquire copyright in a monkey 's selfie ? It 's a depressing idea , that the terabytes of gratuitous selfies snapped by vapid 20-somethings -- serving no other artistic purpose than showing off their outfit or their abs on Instagram -- would be entitled to copyright protection . Meanwhile , a one-of-a-kind `` selfie '' by a downright adorable monkey , might not be entitled to protection . But the law -- international and domestic -- is full of grim irony . In the United States , to qualify for copyright protection , a work ( the photograph ) must meet three criteria : . ( 1 ) It must be fixed in a tangible medium : No problem here . Photographs are a classic example of fixation in a tangible medium , just like paint on a canvas or doodles in a textbook . This is easily satisfied by our simian . ( 2 ) It must be `` original . '' The Supreme Court has observed that this means possessing a shred of creative spark , no matter how crude , humble or obvious it might be . There 's an important distinction to be made here , however : Animals might be capable of original works , but mere works of nature can not qualify . A tortoiseshell or an ostrich egg is created by a living creature , and may be more symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing than many of the wacky sculptures gracing our federal buildings . But they are the result of survival or procreation , not a creative choice . Therefore , these animal creations are not original -- at least under copyright law . On the other hand , some animals do express themselves creatively , and with that minimal degree of creativity required by the law . It 's just hard to say where we draw the line on the evolutionary scale . A finger-painting gorilla is likely expressing originality , but if you dip a beetle in ink and let him walk around on paper , is the beetle showing his creative spark ? Or is he simply trying to flee ? Overall , originality is a low threshold , and probably satisfied by the macaque 's selfie . It 's also a purely academic discussion , because while some animals ' work may be original , unfortunately for aspiring macaques , no animal can ever be an `` author . '' Which brings us to ... ( 3 ) The work must have an `` author . '' In the U.S. , the term `` authorship '' implies that the work must owe its origin to a human being . Materials produced solely by nature , by plants , or by animals are not copyrightable . Similarly , in the UK , an author must be a `` person . '' The bottom line is that monkeys may create works of art , but those works can not qualify for copyright protection . So , can humans acquire rights in works created by animals ? One view would be that ( a ) if animals are your property , and ( b ) they create property , then ( c ) the property of your property is also your property . A dairy farmer owns the egg laid by a chicken ; kittens become the property of the owner of the cat that birthed them . Unfortunately for the photographer here , copyright ownership does not work the way ownership does on the farm . Because the monkey can not create a copyrightable work , that work can never be copyrightable . On the other hand , if the photographer takes a work by an animal and turns it into an ink-blotted , Andy Warhol-inspired piece of pop art , then he acquires rights in the new creation . But in the case of a monkey 's selfie by itself , that photograph immediately and forever falls into the public domain , and can be used by anyone , without permission . Society 's view of animals has certainly evolved over the years . In fact , it has evolved so much that it creates public confusion . The concept of `` animal rights '' is a compassionate one , but it also runs counter to our current legal view of animals . Animal lovers routinely ascribe human qualities to their beloved pets , and animal rights activists will burn a columnist in effigy for daring to suggest that a dog should n't vote or drive a bus . For now , whether you consider monkeys to be property or peer , their pictures can not qualify for protection in the Copyright Office . In the case of copyright , that which is created by Mother Nature , is owned by Mother Nature -- which is to say it is owned , not by one of us , but all of us .
Danny Cevallos : Photog whose camera used in viral monkey selfie wants it off Wikipedia . Photo is uncopyrightable , says Wikipedia because animals ca n't own copyright . But can they ? U.S. copyright law holds work must be in tangible medium , be original and have author . Cevallos : Animals are n't authors . This selfie does n't qualify for copyright protection .