IANAL, but isn't it quite obvious that a photograph of a painting that faithfully reproduces it has no creative/artistic value of any kind and can therefore not

IANAL, but isn't it quite obvious that a photograph of a painting that faithfully reproduces it has no creative/artistic value of any kind and can therefore not be protected by copyright? They explicitly made ridiculous claims because they know this ("The photographer had to make creative decisions in repect of lighting, illumination time, shutter speed, distance, angle etc").