There's the largely undiscussed issue that WMF has a large bias in defending the "information wants to be free" angle, not to mention the hits they get from hosting what is an extremely popular image.<p>However, the photographer isn't his best defender - he goes on about the expense of the camera and lenses "he used for his trip" - when in reality, as a professional photographer, it's highly unlikely he purchased those tools to create this specific image (because of course he didn't have that intention), and it's disingenuous to act like he's out the cost of the photography equipment by not being able to claim royalties on this one image.
Can a monkey, which normally has no rights under the law, hold copyright without it being assigned by someone who does have rights under law?<p>I would argue NO, from a common sense standpoint, but the law isn't really about common sense.
By that reasoning, if the photographer had "set up the shot" for a murder machine instead of a camera, the monkey who inadvertently pressed the button would be the murderer (or suicide victim if it was a "selfie").