What? Samsung comes with a copyrighted background image by default on their phones. The modder took that background image, modified it, and redistributed it. That's illegal.
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.
Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted. And they are generally blurred out for product-placement reasons, not because showing them on television is infringement.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if a filmmaker is sued because the Simpsons is playing in the background of a movie... that is definitely a possible legitimate copyright issue. I'd assume that fair use would apply, though.
Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted.
How can that be? Every artistic work is automatically under copyright (see the Berne Convention, which the US adopted in 1988), so why wouldn't logos be?
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.