Bizarre. I can see the argument that artwork or photography using the same pose is not infringing, and I've seen quite a lot similar poses used in photography a

Bizarre. I can see the argument that artwork or photography using the same pose is not infringing, and I've seen quite a lot similar poses used in photography and art over the years. But that's not the case here. Ruling that the photograph cannot be copyrighted because the pose is not unique is not something I have ever heard of occurring in any case for a Berne signatory until now, and I do not understand how that ruling is compatible with the fundamentals of copyright established within it, though I am a layperson and not a lawyer. There's a lot of people arguing about how the painting isn't an exact copy, but that's irrelevant - copyright is a lot farther ranging than just ctrl+c ctrl+v'ing something. It's true that something as nebulous as "style" can't be copyrighted, but I could not take the latest Avengers movie, animate it in black and white with subtitles rather than audio, and be free from infringing on copyright. The painting is clearly a derivative work, and if the original photo had copyright protection, the painting would clearly be infringing. But, bizarrely, this court appears to have ruled that the photo simply cannot be copyrighted, purely because of the pose of the model. If a unique pose is a requirement for a photograph to be copyrighted, then this renders the vast majority of portrait photography uncopyrightable. I can't imagine this ruling would be upheld upon appeal in most countries that have signed the Berne convention.