Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site? No?
You are indescribably stupid. Not every published item qualifies for copyright protection. Those that do not qualify default to the public domain--end of argument.
Are you sure of the copyright holder? You are not.
You cannot open the argument by dismissing the question of specific ownership. If no human being meets the legal criteria of creative contribution, the image cannot be copyrighted. In such a case, the work is legally in the public domain by design. It is a carefully-considered balance between the public good and the rights of the creator--not some sort of loophole imagined by paranoid corporate zombies.
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
Decidedly not. As comprehensively demonstrated in the article--which you have clearly failed to read--these particular works do not qualify for copyright protection. Had David Slater claimed to have shot them, the photos would have been eligible for copyright protection. Unfortunately for him (and Caters), the value of this set of images rests in its entirety upon having been created through non-human agency.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
The decision to publish these photos is consistent with years of consideration by philosophical minds much more capable than yours. You don't get to interpret law in a way that is expedient to your particular view on a particular case. By any legitimate-, consistent-, systematic measure, Tech Dirt's interpretation is correct. It cannot be made "any more correct"--correctness, like pregnancy, is absolute: either you is or you ain't.
Just as any monkey can press a shutter, any imbecile can form an opinion--existence is in no way equivalent to merit. The macaque's photographs do not meet the requirements for copyright protection; and your abject failure to comprehend fundamental principles makes you incompetent to render a legitimate verdict.
If you're going to exercise your right to an opinion--in public--you might at least try to make it valid.
...Caters appears to believe that our fair use efforts violate some totally unstated right that the Daily Mail holds on these images.
Actually, I think this is their passive-aggressive way of suggesting that the Daily Mail paid Caters to license the images--and you should follow precedent.
From a liability perspective, if the Daily Mail were to hear that these images were in the public domain, they might be inclined to demand a refund. The messages they sent you (a) make it apparent that Caters would not simply roll over in the face of such demands; and (b) provide legal cover in case civil proceedings lead to criminal charges.
The notices just smell as though they were written by someone at Caters who is afraid they solicited- (by means of the defective copyright notice) and accepted monies to which they had no right.
While the monkey may have pushed the button to trigger the camera, it is clear that the setup is all from the human. After all, without the camera in place, secured, etc, the money would have no image to be taken.
Devil's in the details. Slater has acknowledged that he just left the camera lying around.