No that's not true. Facts for instance are usuallly not copyrightable, regardless of how much effort goes into gathering them.
Photographs of artworks that are in the public domain often aren't copyrightable for instance, if they are exact reproductions.
How much effort goes into pressing the button is completely irrelevant to copyright law, creating an uncopyrightable photograph is likely a great deal more strenuous than a copyrightable one.
Which is exactly why I mentioned Bridgeman-Corel, though I admit that's a bit of a legal leap.
I find it terribly amusing how HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.
Yes, I was agreeing with you, I don't think down-voters read your comment properly.
I really don't think the outrage here on HN or the original post is in any way justified, legally the image may or may not be subject to copyright, but it is clearly of extremely low value.
It's actually kind of funny to think the legal system is actually more pragmatic than the commenters here.
> HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.
