In 2011, Naruto was just an anonymous macaque in the jungles of Indonesia. On one particular day, however, the photogenic primate happened upon a wildlife photographer's camera and snapped a "monkey selfie."

Whether the act was intentional or a quite-too-literal instance of monkeying around, only the grinning primate knows for certain.

PETA filed the suit in 2015, and early 2016,U.S. District Judge William Orrickwrote in a tentative opinion that there was "no indication" that the U.S. Copyright Act extended to animals. In 2017 PETA announced a settlement with photographer David Slater, ending a lawsuit it filed on Naruto's behalf. Under the deal, Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of future revenue from the photos to groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia. "The U.S. Copyright Office, since the dispute began, has specifically listed 'a photograph taken by a monkey' as an example of an item thatcannot be copyrighted." (That also extends toartworks by elephants.)

Regardless of the outcome of the case, it raises a complicated question: Who owns the images Naruto took, the monkey or the man?

Please discuss the following:

1. Should a monkey own a copyright?
2. In this case, the court held that monkeys can't own copyright because copyright law does not apply to non-humans. What does it mean to be "human"?
3. What does this mean for AI? Is AI "human"? Do robots deserve rights?
4. AI can create paintings, write fiction and compose music. Currently, the copyrights belong to the companies and engineers that create AI. Should that change? What should be the requirements? Prerequisites? What would a law that protects the ideas and creations of non-humans look like?
5. What is slavery? Is enslaving non-humans (like animals and AI) the same as enslaving humans?