united-states england-and-wales intellectual-property
On the intellectual property of animals, a story of monkeys and cats!
<p>The story of the <a href="http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/09/25/382768.htm" rel="nofollow">monkey who took a selfie</a> is, by now, probably widely known. Summary: a court said that the owner of the camera is not entitled to rights because the picture was taken by the monkey, not the human.</p>

<p>My question is the following: I saw a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0zgQAp7EYw" rel="nofollow">video of a cat playing</a>  the piano. 
(Hear me out...)</p>

<p>(Her name is Nora).
Now, I understand the <em>video</em> is the property of its author: a human being.</p>

<p>But what about the <strong>"music"</strong>. Just the notes. 
I also understand that if the "music" was taught by a human being (like what happens sometimes in a circus) the music is the human's, but in this case, when (it seems) the "music" is really "played" by the cat (rather randomly), is it copytight-able ? I understand the anumal cannot actually have the property, but can his owner?</p>

<p>EDIT: I fogot to state one way this question can be tricky: 
One difference is that the photographer didn't <strong>own</strong> the monkey, but the cat is definitely <strong>owned</strong>.</p>

<p>(The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk" rel="nofollow">countries</a> are UK and US)</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102" rel="nofollow">17 USC §102</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201" rel="nofollow">17 USC §201</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/monkey%20selfie.pdf" rel="nofollow">Animals cannot be authors</a>. To the extent that the cat's owner could be an author, copyright only subsists in "original works of authorship". The test for originality in the US was laid out in <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/" rel="nofollow">Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc.</a></em>, 499 U.S. 340 (1991):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The music produced by the cat was not a product of even a modicum of creativity on the part of the cat's owner (or anyone, for that matter). No copyright subsists in the notes randomly chosen by the cat.</p>
