To me, (in a fantasy, perhaps incompletely considered "sane" world) once you broadcast or publicize something, you really waive all right to continue controlling it. If you want it for yourself, then keep it to yourself. But if you voluntarily allow it to be broadcast on TV or radio, or published in books or magazines, then you chose to make it a part of everyone's environment, and at that point it's THEIR environment, which in a sane world, they are free to at least observe and discuss. And recording and re-transmitting, even without transformation would just be forms of observation and discussion.

If the original photographer didn't want their photograph disseminated, they were free to not publish it or sell it to someone who they knew would publish it. They could have kept it locked in a safe in their own house and for their own enjoyment, and no one else would ever see it, remember it, or depict their impression of that memory to others.

Tell me Warhol's work is not impressionism.

I also wonder what the photographer paid to Prince for the use of his likeness... Or maybe the real theft victim and moral owner of this intellectual property is the designer of the camera or the film or firmware? After all, the operator may have pressed a button, but the engineers did far more work and the image was actually literally created by the camera.