Oh, P.S.
Dropping back in for a sec. This is hilarious:
So this monkey swipes a camera, at takes several dozen bad photos, mostly selfies. One or two turn out OK.
The photographer that owns the camera claims...copyright.
Wikipedia claims it's the MONKEY that contributed/performed the work, not the camera owner. Thus, the pic is in the public domain. They won't remove it, despite the camera-owner's request/claim-to-copyright.
Of course, he want's to make money off of it. Of course, he's already uploaded it and told the story of how the
monkey took the pics.

If he'd have kept his mouth shut, and published the pic as his work, he may have made some small $$$ off it. But no....
Monkey's selfie at center of copyright brouhaha
(No, that's not me, that's the pic in dispute)
So...the camera owner either:
A) Took the pic himself, then lied about the monkey doing it to drum up media attention -or-
B) The monkey took the pics and the camera owner "donated" them to the internet with an interesting story.
He can't claim copyright because he didn't contribute to the work. Basically, if just providing means grants copyright, the whole thing falls apart...your car would be "copyright State of ____" because they provide the means (roads) to use it. Or some such better analogy.
If the monkey is the photographer, he's the copyright owner (creative talent/author)!
I think, ROFL, he (the monkey) should get the royalties and be supplied with bananas or whatever for life. That pic is classic.
I may post this in the OUTSIDE just for fun.