There are two things that confuse me in this article:

(first page towards the bottom)

Several previous cases were also cited in Mr. diCorcia's defense. In Hoepker v. Kruger (2002), a woman who had been photographed by Thomas Hoepker, a German photographer, sued Barbara Kruger for using the picture in a piece called "It's a Small World ... Unless You Have to Clean It." A New York federal court judge ruled in Ms. Kruger's favor, holding that, under state law and the First Amendment, the woman's image was not used for purposes of trade, but rather in a work of art.

Hoepker v. Kruger meaning...some woman sued Thomas Hoepker who is the photographer, Kruger is the person being sued (?) and ruled in favor of? Who sued who? I'm so confused by this example.

Also regarding...

</i>"What was at issue in this case was a type of use that hadn't been tested against First Amendment principles before — exhibition in a gallery; sale of limited edition prints; and publication in an artist's monograph,"</i>

If I were to sell something in 'limited' editions of 100 million, is that still considered art rather than commercial? The quantity may be large, but it's still limited. Just a silly question that popped into my head while reading this.