Thanks, unlike the linked article, this argument gets at the core of the matter: if the scan was not an artistic creation, it is not eligible for copyright pro

Thanks, unlike the linked article, this argument gets at the core of the matter: if the scan was not an artistic creation, it is not eligible for copyright protection. Here's a summary of Meshworks v Toyota: https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/meshworks-inc-v-toyota-motor-sales-u-s-a-good-news-and-bad-news-for-creators-of-new-media-works https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/meshwor... Interestingly, I wonder if you could make the argument that the "illicit trench coat scanning" would have been an artistic creation falling under copyright, but a higher grade commercial scan (as this now appears to be) does not. It thus makes me wonder if this might have been part of the reason for the cover story. Are there more exact cases where a court has ruled that a 3D scan is not artistic? I've been surprised how low the threshold seems to be for photographic works, with "cropping" sometimes seeming to qualify. I wouldn't find it impossible for a court to decide that human decisions on how the raw model was cleaned up might deserve similar consideration. But you seem confident that they will not?