This is just ridiculous. Animal rights ideology taken to an extreme.
● The photographer owns the camera and placed it there.
● The photographer set up the shot.
● The majority of the work was done by the photographer.
● An animal cannot own intellectual property, or copyrights because it doesn't have the intelligence to understand what those are.
● An animal cannot administer copyright permissions.
The absurd notion that copyrights can belong to animals are no different than the absurd idea that a human can "marry" an animal or a tree. An animal cannot legally take part in a practice which it does not comprehend.
No one is (or at least should be) suggesting that the animal owns the copyright. Animals can't own copyrights, so "creative" works produced by animals automatically enter the public domain.
● The photographer owns the camera and placed it there.
● The photographer set up the shot.
● The majority of the work was done by the photographer.
● An animal cannot own intellectual property, or copyrights because it doesn't have the intelligence to understand what those are.
● An animal cannot administer copyright permissions.
The absurd notion that copyrights can belong to animals are no different than the absurd idea that a human can "marry" an animal or a tree. An animal cannot legally take part in a practice which it does not comprehend.