>The photographer for some reason did not pursue this as a copyright infringement claim. The reason is that state institutions have sovereign immunity from cop

>The photographer for some reason did not pursue this as a copyright infringement claim. The reason is that state institutions have sovereign immunity from copyright infringement lawsuits. >Instead he argued that it was an eminent domain case His only recourse was to argue that the infringement was an unconstitutional exercise of government power and sue on constitutional grounds rather than statutory grounds. >It would be sufficient at this point for the state to rule that copyright infringement is not the same as eminent domain seizures, rule against him, and order him to pay the defendant's costs According to the article, that's what the court did. >Instead they oddly ruled instead that the school has sovereign immunity The article doesn't say that. >It is strange if the state can not be held accountable in court for eminent domain seizures It can be, but copyright infringement is a tort, not a property transfer, so not covered under the takings clause. >It is strange that the plaintiff filed this case this way. It was his only option if he wanted to present his case in court.