This article from CNN explains the ruling on the copyright issue from the monkey selfie case. A British photographer, David Slater, had his camera snatched in Indonesia by a monkey who then took a selfie. After the image went viral and was placed on Wikipedia for free use, he asked them to remove it, claiming copyright to the photo.
The article explains the three conditions necessary for a work to be subject to copyright. The first two are clearly met in the case of the monkey selfie; this work has a tangible medium and is original. However, it was determined that the third condition for copyright, that the work has an author, was not met. The argument was not based on whether the monkey could be the author. Clearly, in this sense, the author needs to be human. Rather, the debate was over whether Slater could claim authorship of this photograph. Unfortunately for him, it was decided that he could not, and the work remains in the public domain.
Fue algo bastante curioso y hasta gracioso, en donde se determinó que el mono era el dueño de los derechos de esa foto. ... It was pretty interesting and even funny, where it was determined that the monkey was the owner of the rights to that photo.
The article explains the three conditions necessary for a work to be subject to copyright. The first two are clearly met in the case of the monkey selfie; this work has a tangible medium and is original. However, it was determined that the third condition for copyright, that the work has an author, was not met. The argument was not based on whether the monkey could be the author. Clearly, in this sense, the author needs to be human. Rather, the debate was over whether Slater could claim authorship of this photograph. Unfortunately for him, it was decided that he could not, and the work remains in the public domain.
...
It was pretty interesting and even funny, where it was determined that the monkey was the owner of the rights to that photo.