[guan]

The US Copyright Compendium states that “authorship”, which is a prerequisite for copyright, requires a human author. In previous cases copyright in natural patterns such as wood patterns has been rejected. If the purported author is a non-human animal, then there can’t be copyright (in the US).

http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b)

The Compendium reflects the rulings of the Copyright Office and a court might see things differently. Or the Copyright Office might agree that this photograph was not authored by the human. If they don’t agree, then at the very least you can’t register the copyright and get statutory damages. (Unless you sue the Copyright Office to force them to register.)

[voidlogic]

Then is sounds like wikipedia is correct, a non-human took the photo, that is not disputed, not a human author, therefore the prerequisite for copyright is not met and the image is public domain.