In simple terms, trademark is a "mark" of your "trade".persephone said:I guess I don't understand the difference between a trademark and a copyright, then.
The golden arches in context of foodservice, the slogan "life's good" in context of selling electronics, a certain shade of magenta in context of telecommunications service, etc.
It doesn't claim that you have invented that mark, or even that you "own it", just that in certain contexts it has came to imply the presence of your service, and others using would mean maliciously misidentifying you as the provider.
And he did author quite a lot of photographs on the trip, just as he planned. That he also stumbled onto the formation of a photograph doesn't have authorship, is an extra surprise compared to that.persephone said:I do feel for the potential lost revenue for this guy, if only because he did sink a lot of time and money into the trip that yielded the "selfie."
Regarding lost profits, think of it this way: wherever the limits of copyright are, there will always be "lost profits". Sherlock Holmes just passed into Public Domain, so the Doyle estate is "losing" the profits that they would have if copyright would last 200 years. Artists are constantly "losing" the profits that they could have if they were allowed to ban Fair Use. As long as you are allowed to record the TV shows on blu-ray as you miss them, their creators are "losing" the profit of you having to pay them separately after they aired.
Artists can ALWAYS claim "hey, if copyrights were even wider, then I would have even more money which I am losing right now."
It's like saying that 50 year olds are "losing the money" that they would otherwise get if only they were considered to be beyond retirement age, or that the government is "losing the money" that they could get if everyone would pay a 50% income tax.
Maybe they do, hypothetically speaking, but that's not good enough reason to unquestioningly side with the hypothetical beneficiary of an imaginable change.