| That actually makes some sense of this situation. Not saying it's an okay ruling, mind you. But I can understand why the court arrived at this ruling. Namely: - Artist: hey, that violates my copyright! - court: okay, what was copied then? - artist: well isn't that obvious?! - court: if it is, you should have no trouble pointing it out... - artist: well, the pose, the composition, the lighting. - court: ok. Hey defendant, are you coping copyrightable pose, composition, or lighting? - defendant: naah dudes. Here, have a look at this bunch of works with the same pose, these lot with similar composition, and these with roughly the same lighting. Why there's even an old Dutch master in that last batch! Original, my ass. - court: hey artist's lawyer, we're not here to rule on what we think, but on the legal merits of your claim. And your claim has been thoroughly debunked. Sorry, kthxbai! Note that the crux is in the last part: legal aspects of the claim. If the court had ruled in favour of the artist, they would have to have been able to point out how this work violates copyright, but other similar works don't. And it seems the artist's lawyer didn't supply the court with enough detail to allow them to draw a legal border between what are copies of this work and what is original. TL;DR: Courts don't rule on the merits of a case. They rule on the merits of each side's arguments. |