None of this is responsive to what I wrote. Please read the bits where I talked about how the term could equally well apply to an artificial depiction, and how

None of this is responsive to what I wrote. Please read the bits where I talked about how the term could equally well apply to an artificial depiction, and how there was additional specific context in the headline. You brought this up as a semantic thing (talking about how words have particular meanings) and I gave you reply in that semantic context. Now you've switched to talking about it as a policy issue, explaining it as if the concept wasn't immediately obvious to everyone else. If that's what you wanted to talk about you should have said so in the first place.