I’m seeing lots of analogies here, but are they really necessary? A rights company notorious for fiercely defending its own copyrights flagrantly violates those

I’m seeing lots of analogies here, but are they really necessary? A rights company notorious for fiercely defending its own copyrights flagrantly violates those of a photographer, appropriating and then aggressively defending illegitimate copyright over her work. Is this not a straightforward enough situation to explain without the overhead of analogy-making?