Ask Onix
Monkey selfie ignites global copyright debate
A chance photograph taken by a crested black macaque in an Indonesian jungle in 2011 has triggered a legal storm over who owns art created by non-humans-with far-reaching consequences for AI-generated content.
The incident that started it all
Photographer David Slater set up his camera on a tripod in Sulawesi, hoping to capture images of the endangered primates. A curious macaque pressed the shutter button, producing a grinning selfie that went viral. Slater initially benefited from the attention, but complications arose when Wikimedia Commons hosted the image, arguing it belonged in the public domain since no human had taken it.
The U.S. Copyright Office later clarified its stance, refusing to register works created by non-humans, explicitly citing "a photograph taken by a monkey" as an example.
From monkeys to machines: The AI copyright dilemma
The macaque's selfie became a precursor to a larger debate when computer scientist Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright an AI-generated artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, created by his system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, mirroring its earlier decision on the monkey selfie.
Thaler's legal battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in March 2026, upholding a lower court's ruling: AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, leaving no legal owner-neither the AI, its operator, nor the user.
"It definitely forecloses the most dystopian outcome of machines entirely replacing humans in art and entertainment,"
Stacey Dogan, Boston University School of Law
Why this matters for entertainment and creativity
The ruling has significant implications for industries reliant on copyright protection. Without legal ownership, AI-generated films, music, or books lack the financial incentives that drive human-created content. Studios like Disney, which profit from exclusive rights, may hesitate to fully replace human creators with AI.
Yet, AI-generated content persists. A recent viral phenomenon, Fruit Love Island, featured AI-generated fruit characters in a parody reality show, amassing millions of views. Whether such content has lasting appeal remains uncertain.
"As a consumer, I don't find these wholly AI-generated things compelling. There's something hollow in it,"
Jacob Schneider, Holland & Knight
Global divide: U.S. vs. U.K. approaches
While the U.S. denies copyright for fully AI-generated works, the U.K. takes a different stance. British law allows copyright for machine-generated works, assigning authorship to the person who made "arrangements" for their creation. However, this framework is under scrutiny as generative AI evolves.
A pending U.S. case could redefine the boundaries: Jason Allen won a Colorado art competition in 2022 with an AI-generated image, Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, after extensive prompting and editing. Courts must now determine how much human involvement is required for copyright protection.
The future of human creativity
For now, human-created works retain unique legal protections that AI cannot claim. As AI tools become more collaborative, the line between human and machine input blurs. The legal system continues to grapple with these questions, but one thing is clear: the debate traces back to a monkey's accidental masterpiece.
Intellectual property lawyer Ryan Abbott, who represented Thaler, notes the broader implications: "What's the difference between asking a camera to take a photo and asking ChatGPT to make an image?" The answer will shape what we watch, read, and listen to for decades.
