In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .

so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?


The person who started the self-timer's "count-down" is the person who
pushed the button. The image capture was simply delayed.

correct.

Just as when I press the shutter button on my mechanical SLR, the image
is not captured instantaneously; there is a very slight delay as each
gear, cog, and lever in the mechanism does it's thing.

irrelevant.

Nonetheless, I am the person who initiated the image capture, so once
the image is fixed in a permanent and tangible form, I am the copyright
owner.

correct.

In the case of the monkey pictures, the photographer created a situation
where an image capture (or several images) was likely to occur. He set
up the camera so that the lighting and focus would be conducive to that
image capture (most likely by setting the camera to an auto function).
And he likely owns (or is responsible for) the camera gear. So the human
is the photographer and the copyright owner.

correct

Whether or not an animal
can hold a copyright is not material.

yes it is.

if another person pressed the shutter, they would hold the copyright
since *they* are the one who took the photo.

animals can't hold copyrights, so even though the animal took the
photo, it can't hold a copyright.

it's very simple, but peta wanted to waste everyone's time and money
for some publicity.