Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?We all know the answer to that!The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.IMO the photographer has the rights to the images. The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.
It is not the same, the station pays the cameraman and all actions of the cameraman are intentional following orders or directives given by the station. This case was an accident, totally different.
mrmut: This is rude. I would sue, and request reparations.
The same situation is if a remote IR trigger is set, which would result in a photo when an animal snap it. If not for a photographer, the image would not exist.
Your example is incorrect. The IR trigger analogy would be valid if the camera had INTENTIONALLY been give to the monkey. But is was an accident and no one can claim rights to an accident.
The intention of the photographer should be the determining factor here. If the photographer had purposely given the monkey the camera as part of novel way of obtaining an original perspective then the requests would be justified. But any image that results from an accident and where the photographer has had no direct or indirect intervention in the firing of the camera – this case - cannot be considered “his” image, so the request is not justified.
Russell Evans: Is "Editors Opinion" going to be attached to all like articles in the future? It would be really helpful if it were, so I could easily avoid ever clicking through one of these again.
If you want hard facts wait for the review. That is by far the main reason I come to this site. But I still fail to see sunnycal’s and Russell’s point. If you don’t find value in the editor’s opinion of a press release don’t read it; end of story. The editor’s greatly superior experience and knowledge of the market is what makes his post different to that of the average forum poster. As for his credibility it comes years of building it and is in no way undermined if he stays transparent.
Schonbeck: I just returned my Nikon D600 (and 85mm 1.8G) - was very dissapointed - the difference from the D7000 was close non existent. Look, feel etc. almost identical (now that is not something negative but when you pay twice the price you should get an improvement). Speed and general response was not as good as D7000. Image quality was solid but sharpness was huge dissaponitment and a step down from D7000. Same goes for exposure meetering that i thought was not as good as on D7000. Not sure if i got a bad example or if the firmware is not yet fully optimized. But as a D7000 owner i would never go for the D600. Instead i am starting to look at the A99 - i want something truly new and innovative that will challenge me to develop my skills. Just my opinion.
If you want "something truly new and innovative that will challenge you to develop your skills" keep your D7000 and use the truckload of money you'll spend on the A99, new lenses, etc on some art classes.