Yeah I do agree. However amyjess reasonably brings up an important aspect of this case. SCOTUS has distinguished between satire and parody. If this goes to cour

Yeah I do agree. However amyjess reasonably brings up an important aspect of this case. SCOTUS has distinguished between satire and parody. If this goes to court it is likely Zillow will claim this is satire and not parody since parody claims of copyright exception have a long history of vigorous acceptance. However this all relies on an interpretation that only photographic composition and metaissues are acceptable criticism targets and the actual subject of the photo is somehow not related to the content. That is a novel argument and unlikely to prevail should this be adjudicated.