That was Bill Poser’s point.

PETA despite their name is not an anti-animal abuse group. They are an animal rights organization and their antics distract from real animal abuse issues far more than they help.

They know this and they don’t care, because stopping animal abuse is ancillary to their real goal.

Yes, there is animal abuse. But PETA is so far over the top, and at least 90% of their actions are absolutely ridiculous. Meat consumption is not animal abuse (as a good example of their absurd positions).

Yes. Do you think that there isn’t much abuse of animals? Or that this kind of thing does not waste time and money and discredit PETA?

“But this was a professional camera – I’d guess that it is at least capable of manual selections. Not that it matters much.”

It would almost certainly be capable of both at that level. The point is, we don’t know what settings (manual or automatic) were used.

If the camera owner wants to claim copyright in an animal selfie case, it ought to be the camera owner’s burden to prove some level of create effort beyond merely creating the opportunity for it to happen.

Most modern cameras are capable of automatically making most those selections (shutter speed, aperture, focal point) when the shutter release is pressed.

But this was a professional camera – I’d guess that it is at least capable of manual selections. Not that it matters much.

I would think that the owner of the copyright is the person who selected the use of the camera, to include the setting, the camera attributes (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, drive, focal point, etc.).

I’d maybe buy that if the photographer intended the monkey take the camera and snap a picture – but he claimed it was an accident that the monkey took the camera, and I take him at his word on that. Imagine if some guy at customs had fiddled with the camera during an inspection – would HE get the copyright, if he last touched the settings? That’s ridiculous.

In this case, it’s the person who took the raw image and processed it into something usable.

Developing a negative doesn’t ordinarily involve anything creative (except in the very rare case where you do something nonstandard, and that doesn’t appear to be the case here.) Cropping *might* involve something creative, but I’d hesitate to give copyright on a very obvious crop that anyone would do.

Is it so inconceivable that nobody gets a copyright? The monkey doesn’t get one because he’s a monkey, the photographer doesn’t get one because he didn’t take the picture or intend to create a picture, and the guy who developed the negative doesn’t get one because he didn’t do anything creative.

“the camera attributes (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, drive, focal point, etc.). ”

Most modern cameras are capable of automatically making most those selections (shutter speed, aperture, focal point) when the shutter release is pressed.

“The guy got the monkeys to do it–he has put forth the creative effort.”

I don’t agree that that constitutes creative effort.