It's all kind of silly. I doubt any court will extend IP legal protections to a non-human at this stage of the game.
And the fact the photographer didn't
himself take the shot rules out his claiming copyright
as the photographer.
However, because he owned the
means (i.e. the camera that took the shot) and in the absence of any other
human claiming to have been the photographer, he probably has the best claim to legal ownership of the picture.
Now perhaps the ape
could file suit...but he'd need representation since (again as a non-human) he couldn't file on his own behalf - and it would be interesting to see how they could establish that he gave his
informed consent for an attorney to represent him...hmmm
I
suppose a judge could make him a ward of the state and
appoint legal counsel on his behalf. But that would be such a career limiting move that I don't think many US judges (and certainly not any residing
outside the State of California) would even consider doing such a thing.
Then there's the thorny question of jurisdiction in that this ape is a
resident of Indonesia, and the photo was taken
in Indonesia so it's questionable
which courts would have jurisdiction. (I'm guessing it
wouldn't be the United States in any event.)
Hmm...now should Indonesia decide to make this monkey a ward of the state...and file on his behalf under the international law (good) or international trade agreement (even better) there might be some
kerfuffle over who was legally entitled to whatever money could be made...
Yup...it's insane.
Copyright and related IP law needs to be reformed. Pronto.
