I don't think it's really "stupid clickbait". The entire reason the Warhol Foundation went back to the appellate court was so they could cite Google v. Oracle as a new decision thus requiring review.

That does not make any sense for any reasonable definition of clickbait.

I understand that the WF is incorrectly using the Java API decision (and tying it to media's favorite punching bag by citing google) but the Hollywood Reporter didn't have to go along -- they wrote a perfectly good article that didn't need that title.

HR is reporting accurately. The answer to the question is likely No.

I don't know why your comment was downvoted (I tried to rescue it) as you were responding to confusion due to my poorly written comment.

I explained down thread what I had meant to say.