So? Isn't the point of copyright to compensate artists for their work? I.e. It's to encourage artists to produce art. Ostensibly, we would like pictures of wildlife. If the artist went through all that trouble to take pictures of monkeys, and we don't give him rights for that, we'll just end up with fewer pictures of monkeys.
The purpose is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", the method is "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
In this case, the Work was created by the monkey. Yes, the camera owner helped, but he doesn't meet the established criteria of the Author in existing copyright law. Nor does the monkey (works of nature are not copyrightable).
You can disagree with the law as it exists (I think terms should be drastically shorter, and in no case should copyright be extended retroactively), but it takes an act of Congress or the courts to change it.
I still don't see how securing the rights of works for animals helps promote the creation of those works, when they have no concept of intellectual property rights.
What about an artificial intelligence that creates music? Who owns the copyright then, the programmer or the AI?
