Photographer David Slater left camera equipment lying around in an Indonesian rainforest, and a Sulawesi crested macaque took a photo of themselves. The "selfie" went viral on the internet. When the photo was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Slater complained. Wikimedia reviewed the photo and determined that Slater did not have a copyright in the photo, because the author is actually the monkey. But the monkey is an animal and animals can't own copyrights. Ergo, the photo is in the public domain.

A selfie-taking monkey went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, to fight for his right to own copyrights. Or rather, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) went to court on his behalf, it seems, to make a point about animal liberation. For those of you who haven't been following the case: Yes, this is just as weird as it sounds.

No. Slater is a nature photographer and not exactly rolling in dough. He grumbled to some news organizations and everyone had a good laugh at the story. The US Copyright Office even shaded Slater in their third Compendium—which is like the manual for what kind of copyrightable material they will register.

In the lower court, PETA teamed up with primatologist Dr. Antje Engelhardt of the Macaca Nigra Project, who has known and studied Naruto since birth. Because Engelhardt is familiar with Naruto, she says she can identify him by face (and other primatologists I've reached out to agree that when you're familiar with the monkey in question , it's possible to identify them by face only).

This is actually a big bone of contention in the case: whether PETA should be allowed to be Naruto's next friend at all.

Under Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a minor or a person who is incapable of acting on their own behalf can be represented in court by their "next friend"—someone who's very close to them, about as close as a guardian or a parent.

No. PETA is suing as the "next friend" of Naruto, the crested macaque that is supposedly the monkey in the photo.

Slater self-published a book of wildlife photos that included the famous selfie. PETA sued Slater and the self-publishing book company, Blurb Inc, on behalf of the monkey.

But Engelhardt is no longer party to the lawsuit, having withdrawn in May 2016. The Macaca Nigra Project's Facebook page posted that Engelhardt "felt there was no mutual trust and understanding between her and PETA anymore since a while, and the situation had escalated to a point where she felt it was time for her to step out."

Interestingly enough, PETA's own lawsuit attached as an exhibit a full-body selfie of a juvenile male macaque ( see page 22 ). Because I'm apparently monkey-face-blind, I assumed it was also of Naruto. And I guess, so did PETA. And the lawyers. And every judge at every step of this litigation. Because. It's a monkey.

As far as it's possible to know, probably ? The scientists studying Naruto and his fellow monkeys are in the best position to know, and they say it's Naruto.

And with that, my friend, monkey trutherism made it to the 9th Circuit.

In court on Wednesday, a lawyer for Blurb threw shade at PETA by pointing out that prior news coverage (and PETA's own president, Ingrid Newkirk !) had identified the monkey in the selfie as a female. "We don't even know which monkey we're talking about. [PETA] has no power to say if they've even got the right monkey."

Anyways, uh, the point is that PETA's relationship to Naruto is extremely tenuous and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken note.

Then, as of April 2017, Engelhardt is facing criminal charges for harassing PETA's general counsel Jeffrey Kerr, and trespassing on his property.

Since the statute uses the term "person," authorities like the Copyright Office have determined that "authors" do not include non-humans like monkeys, the ceaseless pounding of the ocean waves, or the Holy Spirit.

With respect to the former, it would appear not—or at least not in the 9th Circuit. That's because the 9th Circuit is bound by its own precedent in Cetacean v. Bush , a case where a "self-appointed attorney for all of the world's whales, porpoises, and dolphins" sued the US government for endangering cetaceans in the ocean with its use of sonar systems. Cetacean stands for the principle that animals can't sue under a given statute unless Congress clearly intended for animals to be able to sue under that law.

The US Copyright Office doesn't think so, but their opinion only counts for so much—they're an administrative agency, not Congress or the courts. There's two related, but ultimately separate questions here:

But Antje Engelhardt has posted on Facebook that it's not Naruto at all , it's actually a different selfie from a monkey named Vlad.

With respect to the Copyright Act, the rest of the statute's text makes that whole situation a little awkward?

Also, monkeys can't grant licenses. If monkeys have copyright, the copyright would just sit there, inert, without anyone to grant the permission to use it. Because monkeys don't do paperwork. It's not really their thing.

But that more or less gets to the absurdity of the whole thing. Under the US Constitution, the Copyright Act and other intellectual property laws are supposed to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by giving creators a property interest they can leverage into making money. What is a monkey going to do with licensing money? Monkeys don't have pockets, yo.

Judge Bea then interrupted. "Well Naruto wouldn't need a written notice. Maybe the other macaque monkeys in Indonesia would." The courtroom burst into laughter.

Later, Angela Dunning, the attorney for Blurb, Inc., pointed out that the statute refers to sending out written notice of a copyright lawsuit to anyone else who has or claims an interest in the same copyright. "It makes no sense to allow a monkey to enforce a copyright suit," she said. "But if you're going to do that, it's equally absurd to deny a monkey written notice of a right to intervene in a lawsuit. It's, uh—"

As counsel for PETA struggled to respond, Bea added, "Are Naruto's offspring children as defined in the statute?"

On Wednesday, Judge Bea pointed out to PETA's attorney David Schwarz that the Copyright Act says that certain rights descend to a deceased author's widow/widower and children—whether legitimate or illegitimate. Carefully enunciating the monkey's name, he asked, "In the world of Naruto, is there legitimacy and illegitimacy?"

What's going to happen now?

In general I like to refrain from predicting how judges will rule, but I feel pretty safe saying that the 9th Circuit will not allow a monkey to sue for copyright infringement.

But on what basis? Who knows. If they say it's because Cetacean v. Bush is binding, then PETA may very well file an en banc petition—asking the court to assemble a mega-panel of 11 judges that has the power to review its own decision and even overturn its own precedent.

If they say it's because PETA can't be a next friend to Naruto, then it's still possible for Slater to get sued again by a monkey. "A new suit may be brought by Naruto through a plaintiff properly pleaded," said Judge Bea on Wednesday. Andrew Dhuey, lawyer for David Slater, shrugged. "I guess that's my next case then."

He added, "I hope at this point PETA stops and leaves my client alone."

Dhuey is seeking attorney's fees against PETA. In layman's terms, he's arguing that this is a really dumb lawsuit and his client the broke photographer shouldn't have to pay for a lawyer just because PETA got a bee in its bonnet about monkey copyrights.

This whole case is bananas, why did they think this was a good idea?