Re: Obvious?
As with almost everyone else here, IANAL, but I suspect that *basic* tinkering of RAW files (e.g. tweaking brightness, contrast, sharpness, other straightforward technical fixes, etc.) probably won't be considered sufficient by a court to confer any additional copyright.
OTOH, if the changes made *were* sufficient, the interesting issue would be that Slater could (theoretically) have only released the modified version- with his copyright resting in the changes made. Even if the original was non-copyrightable, no-one would have access to it, and presumably Slater would be under no obligation to release it.
However, I suspect that changes sufficient to confer additional copyright would destroy the whole raison d'etre of the original photograph, i.e. it wouldn't simply be a "true" simian selfie.
(Disclaimer: The above pre-supposes the original is non-copyrightable for the sake of argument, re: the RAW file modifications. I'm not arguing either way this is necessarily the case in reality.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
