It's weird this monkey is smarter than a baby but if a baby took a picture it wo...

Jun8 · on Sept 12, 2017

First I thought no way, but turns out minors can hold copyright (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17320/can-a-minor-co...). Their rights to sue may be limited in particular states, though, it seems.

aaron695 · on Sept 12, 2017

Except a baby probably shouldn't really hold copyright.

Realistically they are not a human just legally they are.

It's hard to say when human life begins but we seem to settle on treating it as after they are born.

But this is nonsense in any scientific sense.

pitaj · on Sept 12, 2017

Babies are absolutely human, but they may not be persons depending on the definition of personhood. There is no definition of personhood.

aaron695 · on Sept 13, 2017

One hour before birth is it human?

If so how far back do you go before it's not human, is a fertilized embryo human?

If not, whats the difference post birth?

We know many animals are more intelligent than babies. My point is, it's a pointless comparison. Babies don't represent anything human.

And as per the monkey (in this case) can't create. It's the situation they are put in that can create the art. They are just the tool.

slim · on Sept 13, 2017

As a matter of fact, the fact we consider babies human is a progressive evolution in human history. In ancient Greece for example, children were considered property of their father till the age of puberty, who could dispose of them (including of their life) the way he wishes. A father could kill his son without consequences