Luckless wrote in post #17207094
And that there IS doubt over the nature of the photo's copyright is why I feel that Wikipedia and its related organizations are in the wrong for not giving ground over the issue.
If I donate money to them, then I want them to be doing everything in their power to ensure that my money is helping them keep the lights on and legal
data flowing, and not risking that my money ends up in a lawyer's pocket or as part of a settlement paid out to someone lawfully suing them over copyright violations.
Luckless, you've hit on an interesting point here. When there is doubt, it should go to what makes common sense here. The monkey had no intent, Slater did have intent, and in a way, "Got Lucky" (well, now maybe unlucky) ... so in my own mind, personally, I'd think when doubt occurs (and doubt certainly exists here) ... not doubt about who and how the image exists, but a simple doubt about the copyright and intent and ownership, etc. in that regard (as in most legal interpretations of laws -- e.g. beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases) then Slater should get the benefit of that doubt.
As so often the case in legal issues -- one might think "justice is served" -- that doesn't mean the issue is ethically or morally resolved, but only 'technically' resolved because no one considered this kind of issue when copyright policy became law ...
When we consider the point raised earlier -- ask someone, or be asked, to take a photo of a couple on vacation. Altho we probably all agree it belongs to the couple, that issue could easily make a court appearance resolve it simply because a person decided to 'cash in' on a circumstance. So, then we have a legal battle, not because ownership's obvious, but because someone decided "doubt exists' in the interpretation of a law ... that's why our court system is so full, and unable to truly function as it should.