I don't get it - the guy made a pics of TV show and tried to sue TV show owner for using his pics?
The guy took screenshots of a TV show (themselves a sample of an entire copyrighted work, entirely permissible under fair use) and used them in some way.
Not making judgement on your comment but judgement on this issue.
Personally, I don't think just taking a photo of a person is creative work as it has little intellectual, creative, or artistic value. These are the premises which copyright was formed to protect.
As a side note, it would be interesting to understand what conditions this photo was taken under, if it was taken with or without permission, and whether it was taken on private or public property.
It seems one would have to be unaware of the challenges of lighting, shutter speed, lens distance, color grading, editing and much more to believe that.
To clarify my previous comment a little more, "I don't think "simply" taking a photo of a person is creative work". But I also are aligned with you somewhat, that when there is effort there is creative work.
That photo might be 1/30,000 of the game.
If I write a movie review of The Matrix and include a screenshot of Neo dodging bullets, that's your typical fair use. The reason for this is obvious, the screenshot is there for review purposes, maybe to show off the thematic feel of the movie in my review.
But if I do a YouTube video review of The Matrix and then include the entirely of movie, it's not fair use. I could maybe show a scene or two, but I can't just wholesale copy paste the movie and call it fair use.
After all, if that was okay, you could "legally pirate" anything by just having a 5 second review before the movie.
After you spend a fortune helping a judge decide. CBS has the money, "you" don't.