Parent is arguing that having no image significantly changes the value. It is very challenging to determine how much value was created by using the infringing image, one that the court must decide. What is not challenging to determine is that the image provided some value (where that is a dollar or a million is a different question).

Actually, even if it provided no value whatsoever, even if Buzzfeed did not make a profit off of it, this would still be infringement and the photographer is entitled to remuneration.

> Actually, even if it provided no value whatsoever, even if Buzzfeed did not make a profit off of it, this would still be infringement and the photographer is entitled to remuneration.

I never said the guy was wrong. I said I think this is silly and he should just move on.

Why? What about this is silly? The man's photography was appropriated without permission by a commercial entity and used to generate revenue that he was never offered. This is the kind of thing that upsets content creators. What about it is silly?

If it doesn't change the value then why didn't they use the 2nd image in the first place?