Why? You fail to mention your assumptions about Luxembourg judges that underlie the "plausibility" and "unsurprisingness" of this outcome. Can you maybe share your argument with the curious reader?

The court argued that the original photograph was not original enough to warrant copyright protection.

Yet a painted replica of the photograph was apparently original enough to win a prize and be put up for sale at a gallery.

This decision is completely absurd, so there must be some reason why the court decided the way it did.

The explanation that a Luxembourg judge at a Luxembourg court decides in favor of a Luxembourg man who just won a Luxembourg price and is represented by a popular Luxembourg lawyer just sounds very plausible.

Judges are humans too, and they are not infallible, so it seems plausible that this has something to do with the decision.

Yes, there must be a reason. It's described extensively in the proceedings of the case.

What seems most plausible to me, is that we, aliens to Luxembourgh copyright law, outsiders to the court case, unaware of the actual text of the ruling, jump to unfounded conclusions based on our gut feeling and superstitions.

You seem to have a lot of trust in the Luxembourg district court :)

Maybe there is something in the proceedings that explains the absurd ruling, but I really doubt it. We'll see how the story plays out. I don't think this judgement will hold.

I don't believe that the Luxemburg court is just Rassist.

Luxemburg is not some random backwards country

No, it’s a very special country with almost all of its lawyers on retainer for Paypal. But, since Paypal only answers to litigation inside Luxemburg, there is a problem. If you try to sue them there, you will have a hard time finding a lawyer who will represent you.

Nationalism is also a thing, and tribalism, just saying

> has the most plausible explanation

If you're going to claim racism and "anti-american bigotry" "plausible", you need a bit more than just a rando on Twitter making such claim. Who's the person tweeting what you quoted? You don't know. What's the exact ruling? You don't know.

Accusing a court of racism against 'asians' and 'anti-Americanism' is a serious accusation.

Not only that, but you are finding 'plausible' a collusion between the lawyer and the judge who made the verdict? it is simply preposterous, not "plausible".

This is an article that goes deeper into the court decision, without resorting to identity politics (in French).

https://www.tageblatt.lu/headlines/affaire-dieschburg-zhang-...

Basically it says that in that specific country, photographs that do not demonstrate some degree of originality aren't protected by a copyright law from 2001 (when it comes to plagiarism which is obvious in that case).

....but this reasoning/ruling now apply to all other portraits?

This is NOT the US (or any common-law jurisdiction) where it sets a precedent. Civil-law jurisdictions don't have a concept of precedents, they always look at a case based only upon law.

I think that’s not quite right. Precedents have a lesser role but are definitely relevant. My law classes in the Netherlands extensively covered important rulings as a way to interpret laws.

Not everything is racist.

Theres also tribalism and nationalism fwiw

It would sound plausible if you are American I guess.