[boop]

But I thought that it is virtually impossible for a "public figure" to sue for anything disparaging. IIRC, they used an actual photo of Falwell, and Flynt won based on the fact that it was a "parody". Totally protected by the First Amendment.

And who came to Flynt's defense? Scalia.

So if George says it was a "parody", isn't he in the clear?

BTW, does George own the rights to HIS image?

Many thousands of paintings, drawings, and even photographs have been made of him.

Can HE sue over each and every one?

[unlearner]

I can’t predict the court outcome, but it seems ridiculous on the face of it to claim a painting of a public photo violates intellectual property rights.

There is well established law, or at least precedence, regarding photos. This is how photo journalists make their money. Parody does give legal protection; so I think his painting should be safe.

Bottom line though is that AP has no financial damages, and there is no confusion in the marketplace created by this painting. They should be awarded zero. It certainly comes across as just an effort to harass a guy they targeted arbitrarily from the start.