body: The story of the [monkey who took a selfie](http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/09/25/382768.htm) 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.
  
  
  My question is the following: I saw a [video of a cat playing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0zgQAp7EYw) the piano. 
  (Hear me out...)
  
  
  (Her name is Nora).
  Now, I understand the *video* is the property of its author: a human being.
  
  
  But what about the **"music"**. 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?
  
  
  EDIT: I fogot to state one way this question can be tricky: 
  One difference is that the photographer didn't **own** the monkey, but the cat is definitely **owned**.
  
  
  (The [countries](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk) are UK and US)
  
  
  
title: On the intellectual property of animals, a story of monkeys and cats!