A PHOTOGRAPHER says the case of who owns the copyright of a monkey selfie which was taken with his camera will go back to court despite a settlement being reached last year.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a motion to dismiss the case despite a deal where David Slater, a photographer who is based in Chepstow, agreed to donate 25 per cent of any future revenue of the image to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia.

This means the case about who owns the rights to the image that the Naruto the monkey took using the photographer’s camera will go to court.

The photo of the monkey made headlines around the world when he took his own picture using Mr Slater’s camera in an Indonesian jungle in 2011.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) sued on behalf of the macaque monkey in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey.

The settlement was reached in September 2017, but the case will now come to court.

Mr Slater told the South Wales Argus: “I can’t believe it has taken so long for the court to decide this, I had forgotten about it.

“Now there will be a judgement after all. I’m really excited about it and I’m quite sure I will get to keep my copyright to these images. I’m also happy the case helped to highlight the plight of these rare monkeys, the reason I created these pictures in the first place.

“I’m currently trying to get the help I need to meet Naruto out in Sulawesi, and say 'hi' at last.”

The court wrote in a written order that is dated April 13: “We believe it would be improper to grant the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and Vacate the Judgment. Accordingly, the motions are hereby denied.”

Mr Slater wants to continue to fight online encyclopaedia Wikipedia who have refused to remove the photo from their website.

He added: “I’m sure Wikipedia will continue to offer my work as free to would-be victims of copyright infringement. This is because of their wilful and damaging attempts to create a false consensus about UK copyright.”