This decision isn't "a reversion to medieval times", whatever your opinion on the legal status of these images— this is an entirely procedural decision in which the judge ruled that the specific claims of copyright infringement are invalid because the plaintiff never filed for copyright:
> Orrick spends the rest of his ruling explaining why he found the artists’ complaint defective, which includes various issues, but the big one being that two of the artists — McKernan and Ortiz, did not actually file copyrights on their art with the U.S. Copyright Office.
In other words, the story here is mostly that the lawyers screwed up badly in pursuing a copyright lawsuit before ensuring copyright had been filed.
> Orrick spends the rest of his ruling explaining why he found the artists’ complaint defective, which includes various issues, but the big one being that two of the artists — McKernan and Ortiz, did not actually file copyrights on their art with the U.S. Copyright Office.
In other words, the story here is mostly that the lawyers screwed up badly in pursuing a copyright lawsuit before ensuring copyright had been filed.