Thanks, I wasn't really aware of that distinction. I haven't read the decision yet. Do you have a sense of how important the distinction actually is in this c

Thanks, I wasn't really aware of that distinction. I haven't read the decision yet. Do you have a sense of how important the distinction actually is in this case? I assumed the larger question was whether it was "transformative". For comparison, I was astounded by the decision that Richard Prince's work was considered fair use: http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince. Quoting from that page (which I realize is just a synopsis and not a legal opinion): "In order to be fair use, a secondary use must transform the original by employing it in a different manner or for a different purpose than the original in order to produce a new expression, meaning, or message. A secondary use does not need to comment on or critique the original in order to be transformative as long as it produces a new message." Is this really less transformative than painting a guitar and some face paint on someone else's photograph? Given that both cases involved overturning the decision of a lower court, clearly both sides are arguable here. It makes me wonder if this is really just a Circuit split, with different standards in different regions. Is there a canonical Supreme Court case here with national precedent that would unify these decisions?