From a photography point of view I can see both sides of the argument, even though the article says it's not just a pixelation filter to me it's not modified en

From a photography point of view I can see both sides of the argument, even though the article says it's not just a pixelation filter to me it's not modified enough to see any artistic effort. On the other hand, I don't really see the damage done to the photographer so many years after taking the picture. However, my first thought was "that's the Kind of Blue cover" not "that's the famous photo of Miles Davis". Kind of Blue is one of the greatest records of all times so if anyone should get compensated it's Columbia or Miles' estate. I just checked my vinyl version of the record and the photographer isn't even mentioned. No doubt it's a great photo but without Miles it would be just a photo of a guy with a trumpet and none of this would have happened.