[shagie]

https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-12-22-14.pdf

Section 313.2

The copyright office said that photographs taken by monkeys nor murals painted by elephants are works that may be copyrighted. This is based on Burrow-Giles Lithography vs Sarony ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/111/53 )

The issue is that the photographer / owner of the camera didn't exercise any creative control over the photograph.

> On 22 August 2014, the day after the US Copyright Office published their opinion, a spokesperson for the UK Intellectual Property Office was quoted as saying that, while animals cannot own copyright under UK law, "the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

And this is a "it's complicated" and further complicated by the difference in threshold of originality with US law and sweat of the brow for UK law.

[kube-system]

Right, it hinges on the creativity of the human author. And there’s a lot more to creativity of photography than simply pushing a button.

Obviously, routine and ordinary photographs taken by a photographer on a timer are not disqualified just because a machine pushed the button.

I am not saying that anything with a monkey qualifies, my point is that the involvement of a monkey is not disqualifying.