However, if this counts as being "taken by chickens" then it also implies that when a burglar triggers a motion-activated camera, the burglar owns the rights to the image.
No, per the description and your legal context, the chickens are not taking the pictures.
You don’t own the copyright for any picture generated by a computer, whether random or intentional
The law generally won’t help you narrow down where the exact line is between those two, as that’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
That said, chicken can't own copyright, and they are the author, therefore no one owns the copyright.
It’s when then computer creates the art itself that it becomes the artist
The problem isn't really about using it yourself, it's that people don't need to ask your permission to use it, therefore you can't (easily) profit from it. Possibly quite annoying if you're in the AI business.
> Are these chicken selfies?
> Yes. The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function (the capture method on the Pi), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.
> This is identical to a human using an input device (tapping a button) to invoke a computer function (the post method on Instagram), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.
Maybe the BUY NFT link on every photo goes to accounts the chickens own. Nothing about NFTs makes any less sense than this, so why not?
(I misread KYC in the GP comment as KFC first until I read your comment.)
But yeah, the the chickens or a burglar steals the cameras and activate them by their own programing, overriding whatever setting they had before, the camera owner won't own the copyright on the photos anymore.
In other words, it's not that easy to lose the copyrights. The burglar just activating the motion-trigger isn't enough.