Re: Technically it is the monkeys
quote: "Oh, and even attempting to claim that mere ownership of the means implies automatic copyright in whatever they produce without one's significant creative involvement is simply so ludicrous it beggars belief - don't bother..." (emphasis mine)
For the 5th? time this thread, quoted from Mr. Slater himself:
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."
Sounds like significant creative involvement to me.
quote: "There were two parties involved in producing this photograph:
1) The photographer, who created the situation, set up and adjusted the camera and allowed the ape to play with it, in full knowledge of the likely outcome.
2) The ape, who pressed the button without any concept of what it was doing other than copying the previously observed physical actions of the photographer."
As has also been said 5? times already this thread, the Macaque is not legally recognised as a party, the same way a snail would not be legally recognised as a party. Thus there was one party involved in producing this photograph, namely Mr. Slater. In cases where only one party is involved in creating a work, is that party not automatically accredited with copyright in that work?
I do not think Wikipedia's argument holds any legal water, at least not under UK or EU copyright legislation, and I suspect not under US legislation either (they tend to take quite a dim view of IP infringement over there as well).
Note: both these arguments are not mine, I have shamelessly ripped off people far more erudite than I. I am simply (re)presenting them in the hopes of elucidating others.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
