This isn't copyright maximalism; she's suing someone who literally just made a painting of her photograph. If you can't sue over that, then you own basically no

This isn't copyright maximalism; she's suing someone who literally just made a painting of her photograph. If you can't sue over that, then you own basically nothing, and copyright is effectively abolished. Either... - Her lawyer fucked up drafting the lawsuit - The court horrifically misunderstood her claim, and will be smacked down on appeals - There's some context that has been intentionally omitted (but I doubt it - I mean, the claim fits into a single image and tweet)