> Bell’s complaint alleges he took the photograph in March 2000. However, the defense noted the skyline photo shows green grass and a working fountain. The defense argued that grass in Indianapolis is rarely green in March, and that records show the city did not turn the fountain on until April 2000. The company also pointed to Bell’s testimony that on the day he allegedly took the photograph, he took another skyline photo from the same location later that night. In the nighttime photograph, trees visible under streetlights have no leaves, whereas the same trees in the daytime photograph appear thick with foliage.

> In its verdict, the jury determined that Bell had not proved that he “authored the Indianapolis Skyline Photo, that he owns a copyright in it, and that he registered it with the Copyright Office.”

So from a previous trial, the guy couldn’t even prove the most basic claim that he’s the copyright holder.