I can't believe this case is even seeing the light of day let alone a judge. I think copyright needs a major overhaul but at the same time this guy clearly owns the images. A simple rule needs adding - he who owns the camera owns the copyright unless another arrangement has been explicitly made. The other arrangement would cover hiring camera equipment etc. While we're at it lets pass a law: animals can't own property of any kind.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
