Something rotten here
I remember the original story from 2011. When it first appeared in the Mail, the story was that the photographer had left his camera lying around, and was astonished to discover the selfie when he came back for it. Now he was present when it was taken.
If his original story was true, then the monkey has a good claim to be the photographer (and hence the copyright). If his new story is the true account then he has a good claim to the copyright.
Anyone know why the original story was different from his new account?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
