This just seems a bit far reaching, perhaps the image should just be declared Open Source, or under a Creative Commons license. I think it's fair to say the photographer didn't take the picture, but it's unfair to claim the monkey has ownership rights, how can he defend them or sue people for them? Is PETA thinking they can be the voice of the voiceless here and become the pseudo-owners of these images? I know their suit says they need ownership so they can give the proceeds to him and his family, which includes paying for the preserve he lives in, but come on, are they going to become the holders of animal copyrights all over now, it's asinine to me.
This just seems a bit far reaching, perhaps the image should just be declared Open Source, or under a Creative Commons license. I think it's fair to say the photographer didn't take the picture, but it's unfair to claim the monkey has ownership rights, how can he defend them or sue people for them? Is PETA thinking they can be the voice of the voiceless here and become the pseudo-owners of these images? I know their suit says they need ownership so they can give the proceeds to him and his family, which includes paying for the preserve he lives in, but come on, are they going to become the holders of animal copyrights all over now, it's asinine to me.