> "by hand" isn't really meaningful. Agreed—but it suddenly is meaningful if Warhol copies by creating silk screens, versus someone, say, copying by playing so

> "by hand" isn't really meaningful. Agreed—but it suddenly is meaningful if Warhol copies by creating silk screens, versus someone, say, copying by playing someone else's song (but with some small, deliberate changes!) having learned it, let's say, by ear? It's precisely that large difference in standards that surprises me. You can be nowhere near creating a copy this similar, in other media, and get hit with a basically-unwinnable lawsuit. I had no idea how much looser copyright protection was in this particular media-world, versus every other one I'm aware of, before this case started making news and people were treating it as if the Warhol side weren't super-obviously doomed to settle or lose. That surprised me.