Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
Particularly since, as the judge in the case noted, it's been a matter of settled case law for the better part of a century that photographs are original works in the meaning of copyright law. To base your defense on a theory that was dispensed with decades ago is really weak.
I expect that the argument wasn't an attempt to upset the case law, but rather an attempt to distinguish that case law by characterizing Patrick Cariou's work as something so mundane as to not be entitled to protection.

The argument might work if the "purloined" photographs came from something like, as an example, a mall security camera.