QUOTE: "If you don't have releases, why were you publishing the pictures in the first place? Seems to me that you are just as guilty as the people who used your photo."
Editorial does not require releases from anyone for anything, ever. That's freedom of the press, provided it depicts the truth, -- if true, doesn't matter if it damages someone or not.
You take a picture of a bank-robber Jack Jones, in process, and label him a bank-robber, you will not be liable for damages because you stated he is robbing a bank. If you state - untruthfully - that "Jack Jones" is a bank robber, and he is in fact NOT one, the you have damages.
And, as far as the monkey image ... intent is a primary word in legal actions. This photographer has the intent that his camera will capture "HIS" images. My opinion, that is at least half the battle ... only when another person, with permission and no contract, pushes the shutter does any copyright debate influence the issue.
Any arguments advanced here carry no value once the intent question is answered. Indonesian law may rule in it's own favor, but that does not make it right, or moral or ethical, or legal.
IF we buy into the law as representative of our social values (as opposed to anarchy), then this is actually not even an argument. Slater wins. But, we always have those folks that will find fanatical and technical room for debate, and then debate it to death just for something to do -- in my mind, there is no doubt Slater owns copyright -- everything else is simply an unjustified and baseless argument.
Does it say anywhere in any copyright law "only the person who pushes the shutter button owns copyright?" I doubt it, because to many ways exist to make that happen without pushing that button. So, it falls right to intent ... that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.