'Fraid not. That was what PETA asserted in their suit following the initial wikimedia/photographer arguement. Sadly, the situation is less entertaining than that... The court in the US found that although the monkey had taken the picture in question in the sense of having pushed the button, it was not competent to be held as the creator of the work on a legal sense. The court's determination was that no copyright existed in the photograph as the protection of copyright did not extend to non-human creatures. In essence, that the monkey had created the photograph, but that the photograph was not a copyrightable work in this instance. The photographer who set up the equipment to entice the monkeys into pressing the relevant button disputes this (and some legal thinkers suggest that by creating the circumstances which allowed and caused the photograph to be taken he may have a case that he should be considered the creator), but I'm not aware that it has gone to a legal appeal on this latter point.
The photograph exists. The monkey cannot hold copyright on the photograph because US copyright law has been deemed to only recognise humans as being eligible to hold a copyright. Currently therefore the photograph has no "creator" in the sense intended by copyright law. It is an open question as to whether the wildlfe photographer who set up the camera to allow the monkeys to operate the mechanism can legally claim creators rights.
(Personally I'd be quite happy to see monkeys allowed to claim creators rights. US sitcom writers can have them, so why the heck not monkeys?"
"an additional set of chromosones"... sounds alarmingly like the whole "recoverable second set of DNA from an absorbed twin" stuff from Orphan Black! Except that the crayfish can reproduce without needing a lab to actually joggle the dna into growing a new individual... No-one tell the Conspiracy - we'll be hip deep in physically identical Crayfish with distinctive personalities before we can blink.
There is something kind of wonderful in the oddness of Penguin's doing enough guano that it can be spotted from space. Take that puny humans - we don't need construction gear to make a mark on the planet.
The spider was not trained. It did not jump on demand. There was only one spider. Hardly conclusive.
They modeled a dead spider and claimed it matched data from a live one. They modeled the spider as a uniform blob. Spiders are not uniform blobs.
They concluded there was no hydraulic system involved in the jumping. By looking at a dead spider which by default has no hydraulic pressure as it is dead.
I've asked the authors to see their CT data. The spider looks not only dead but lopsidedly squashed at the back.
They have a nice idea but don't seem to have carried it out very carefully, fully or robustly. I am struggling to see how this paper got through peer review in its current form, let alone into a Nature journal.
So you're using spiders to test a hypothesis that could then be used on other animals? It sounds fascinating - what does measuring the cardiac function of spiders tell us? and more importantly, did you offer them a cup of tea when they came round afterwards?
Measuring cardiac function is the first step towards testing to see what sort of cardiac disease they might get and why. And also testing to see if at a genetic level the hearts are as evolutionary convergent with vertebrates as they are physiologically.