Photographer Loses Lawsuit After Museum’s Use of His Image Is Ruled Fair Use

This is a civil case, not political per se, but the fact that a judge could so cavalierly strip someone of their rights to their own art is indicative of the liberal leanings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The judge ruled in favor of OHIO business, The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They used a photographer's iconic photograph without permission, licensing or royalties to highlight Eddie Van Halen's guitar collection. Not sure which one it is, because this guy will sue you into oblivion if you use his images, but he's entitled to. He owns the images.

But the R&RHOF argued that the way they used it "materially transformed it's purpose and therefore was of Fair Use."

However, wouldn't / shouldn't the charging of admission fees to the R&RHOF negate any 'Fair Use'?

Now consider how that ruling affects copyright law and apply it to patent law. If you take some company's patented product, like say, a specific laser it developed for reading cryptographs in space, and then some other company comes along and uses your laser design to develop a medical diagnostic device that solves the cancer riddle, you would not receive one penny for your design because the use was "materially transformative and for the good of the public".

The photographer's website: ZLOZ.COM

PetaPixel article about the lawsuit.