It doesn't even need to be a copyright case, just a reasonable dispute. You got cheated out of something that a common-sense judgment can plainly discern. Like I said, it's enough to send a warning, and even small warnings are legally valid precedent if the habit continues. Even if it's a doofy complaint and they're given formal notice, they are obligated to respond or it goes into default. But I don't think any of us are likely to be targets unless the name on our mailbox happens to be Picasso or Gauguin. The Uncle Earl incident a few years ago involved mere claims to otherwise unknown photos allegedly taken by AA, so weren't counterfeit or knock-off at all, but did violate name licensing. But no lawyer is going to step up to the plate for you if your name is Lester Hoganboath instead. I'm stating this in a large format context. If someone is trying to sell phone images every bit as bad as web imagery to begin with, it might become complicated if they happen to snap the world's first picture of an alien landing then post it. Let's just say someone downloaded an image of BW's famous Holland Canal image and digitally printed it. Why would anyone pay for something like? Xerox-quality Brett Weston prints, 50 cents each, right at your flea market stand. That crowd is more likely to pay real money for a black velvet Elvis rug.