Yeah, so maybe it's a lot murkier then we all understand. From a previous response, it looks like this case sidestepped the issue by ruling the photograph was n

Yeah, so maybe it's a lot murkier then we all understand. From a previous response, it looks like this case sidestepped the issue by ruling the photograph was not original enough so didn't fall under copyright protection (I guess?). I think the Prince prints from Andy Warhol are a better example [0]. I see a lot of articles from Oct 2022, so is this case still being tried? Copyright is a quagmire of "rule-of-thumb" policies and, in my opinion, often invalid assumptions. Understanding what and what does not fall under copyright protection is really about what the legal system understands it to be and how to convince a judge. I don't really like arguing "what's correct" when it comes to copyright violation as that's irrelevant, it's really about "what the legal system thinks is correct". One of the few pieces on copyright that's made sense to me is the "What Colour are your bits?" article by mksala [1] which, if I'm remember correctly, is arguing that it's less about the artifact produced than the provenance of how it was created. [0] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol-supreme-court-copyright https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol... [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23