It's clearly nonsense anyway. Even if you accept the argument that he has no claim to the copyright of the original image as it existed in his camera (which I'm not sure I do), the image that he actually released was almost certainly a derivative work that he had made. Assuming that that derivative work included any significant modifications, e.g. framing, color, etc I would expect it to be copyrightable and that copyright would clearly belong to Mr Slater.

The burden of that argument is that you'd never be able to 'own' photos of strangers or anybody who doesn't sign a release, or stranger's pets, or any piece of art or architecture, because the scene or object that gives the photos its essence was actually created largely by other people. You have to tie photo ownership to the physical act of taking them, and this one was not taken by him. He hadn't even intended to give the monkey his camera or tried to arrange for it - it was pure fluke, unless you count the agency of the monkey. Which here almost seems more legitimate.

For clarity

This is public domain footage now, because the bird stole the camera: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-camera-...

This is copyright, because the photographer strapped cameras to the bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography "A photograph of Schlosshotel Kronberg (then called Schloss Friedrichshof after its owner Kaiserin Friedrich) became famous due to its accidental inclusion of the photographer's wing tips. In a breach of copyright it was shown in German cinemas as part of the weekly newsreel in 1929.[16]"

Nonsense. Whoever owns the camera has a good common-sense claim to copyright.

By your logic, supposedly Slater could sue the monkey for illicit use of his camera.