What specificity is missing? I think it’s fairly simple.
Firstly, I think we can completely ignore "misdeeds". Nothing in the creation of this photograph occurred contrary to anyone else's wishes.
In a nutshell, there was two slightly different versions of events here, which lead to opposing conclusions.
The first version was the tagline the photo was originally published under. A "monkey's selfie".
Now, if I say "pass me my phone", or "may I borrow your phone", and then take a 'selfie' with it; I think it's pretty clear that the "creative input" was mine, not yours. So the question becomes "if I, a monkey, am not legally recognised as a person capable of copyright - does it fall to you, or does it simply fail to be copyrighted".
So that's the example I was trying to frame. That if that monkey was me, the copyright claim wouldn't even be a question (nor would anyone be looking at the photo). But ironically, the description that created the commercial demand of the photograph, also destroyed the photographer's ability to commercially exploit it.
Then we got the later, long-form version of events. That the camera was intentionally staged for this, a wide-angle intentionally selected for this, the remote intentionally positioned for this, etc. "how the sausage is made", but basically the photographer reasserting that the "creative input" was his.
The whole thing then got lost in a limbo; a court in the US, and the ICO in the UK, have both said animals cannot own copyright. Neither has opined on whether an animal is capable of "creative input". If they are, the monkey was likely the primary source of creative input, not the photographer (in which case there simply is no copyright). If they're not, then he'd be the sole creative input, and the copyright is his.
Ultimately I think the photographer shot himself in the foot.
(I do have other questions though. If a US court has said a monkey cannot own copyright, how was this PETA case even a thing? How are PETA able to assert themselves as the IP agent for an Indonesian monkey? And why are the actions of a British photographer, acting in Indonesia, being opined in a US court?)
tl;dr, but in essence we cannot completely ignore "misdeeds", because the circumstances are essential in your example, the case not withstanding. That the same circumstances wouldn't be comparable to the monkey's action in the case is either a baseless assumption or showing the hole in your analogy. That is, unless you alleged you were a monkey :P
I mean, you weren't specific so I may assume you stole the camera. And I'm sure monkeys have a concept of stealth, too.
Firstly, I think we can completely ignore "misdeeds". Nothing in the creation of this photograph occurred contrary to anyone else's wishes.
In a nutshell, there was two slightly different versions of events here, which lead to opposing conclusions.
The first version was the tagline the photo was originally published under. A "monkey's selfie".
Now, if I say "pass me my phone", or "may I borrow your phone", and then take a 'selfie' with it; I think it's pretty clear that the "creative input" was mine, not yours. So the question becomes "if I, a monkey, am not legally recognised as a person capable of copyright - does it fall to you, or does it simply fail to be copyrighted".
So that's the example I was trying to frame. That if that monkey was me, the copyright claim wouldn't even be a question (nor would anyone be looking at the photo). But ironically, the description that created the commercial demand of the photograph, also destroyed the photographer's ability to commercially exploit it.
Then we got the later, long-form version of events. That the camera was intentionally staged for this, a wide-angle intentionally selected for this, the remote intentionally positioned for this, etc. "how the sausage is made", but basically the photographer reasserting that the "creative input" was his.
The whole thing then got lost in a limbo; a court in the US, and the ICO in the UK, have both said animals cannot own copyright. Neither has opined on whether an animal is capable of "creative input". If they are, the monkey was likely the primary source of creative input, not the photographer (in which case there simply is no copyright). If they're not, then he'd be the sole creative input, and the copyright is his.
Ultimately I think the photographer shot himself in the foot.
(I do have other questions though. If a US court has said a monkey cannot own copyright, how was this PETA case even a thing? How are PETA able to assert themselves as the IP agent for an Indonesian monkey? And why are the actions of a British photographer, acting in Indonesia, being opined in a US court?)