Yes. As in most any discussion, some of the off-topic drift is related and valuable, some just the expression of a need to be heard and vent a narrow, personal view.

Quite fine as is, the nits noticed are only a dominant aspect if narrowly focused on. I really dislike this on a personal level for its "gruesomeness" for want of a better word, but would definitely jury it into an exhibition on its well-honed merits around a central idea.

Interesting shot with good technique, but the reflection at the bottom is not in harmony compositionally and is just a distraction to the content.

Depending on your purpose, #4 if you were taken by the bugler himself, #1 for the fuller picture. I like #1 because it is unique and it has a relation to the human condition, one of the goals of good art.

This is a great logical fallacy. Physical possessions and intellectual property are not even close to similar.

To all the above, to expose the clear haters and to clarify the theme.

It seems the work fails, whether with non-haptic and/or people hostile to me and spinning or with open-minded and knowledgable viewers.

Thanks to all (even the apparent personal haters). Knowing where I've failed is important. The artistic saying "I just do it for myself" in often misunderstood, and as a standard of art is BS and goes against basic human nature and the history of art.

Now, perhaps those willing can point why my theme failed, as I state it: The legacy of Western Culture is an overview of the burning of one of its symbols. It can be seen as one moves, or jumps around and considers, the classical Greek face from the era that is the kernel of our culture, through other destructions (the columns), to a high expression of it in the Renaissance (Michelangelo's "David") to the seemingly re-ignited understanding of our cultural strength (the glowing, restored Rose Window of the cathedral and final movement off to the upper right, a lightful, glowing hope). The picture also contains the moment in time of the cathedral's fire and falling). [A strange sidelight, the firefighters are from a shot I took across the street from my apartment in Chicago years ago. Also, the hints I give, (or thought I gave) of the clock face )time passing) and the reaching hand (searching for meaning) are photos of parts of other artworks of mine.]

Feel free to riff on this. I would like to know why I didn't convey my point.

Actually, a few experts in any field may not be adequate. Doing research with primary sources is important if this is going to be an issue for you. If those lawyers gave you the last bit, I really would doubt them. The fact is, if you register your copyright you can sue for punitive damages besides the financial damages that are allowed if you have not registered.

Thanks for the replies, although I'm sad that I seem to have failed.

And, no one has "caught" my theme. Not the results I'd hoped for, but truth really does makes us free.

I'd mind, if they made money or hurt my reputation, as copyright law forbids. If they "appropriate" it, including some of it in an artwork, I don't mind, copyright law not minding. I do that myself. If they mess up my image, I'd likely mind, but would just have to live with it.

Actually you can use any photo posted here, just not here because of UHH rules, and in the world at large under certain copyright restrictions.

I suspect you shot with a lens at under 50mm. Wide angle lenses distort perspective. As so long lenses in a different manner.

Your mind is fine. It is complex. Thanks.

The first two are real street photography, in the sense that they have people in the act of being human. Both have way too much unnecessary background. I suggest you crop a lot, including just enough to place them in some reality.

Very creative and enjoyable contrasts of value and shape. Shows us a beautiful new view.

Done well, and not a hackneyed landscape, sunset, etc. shot. Enjoyable at deeper levels. Thanks.

It's complicated. Here are two good sources on copyright, one the law itself, the other, from public service lawyers:
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-alter-or-make-art-from-books-prints-other-copyrighted-works-without-getting-sued-for-infringement.html

Using your situation as an example, someone was making money from an unaltered intellectual property of yours. Not fair use. Illegal.

If, however, I see your photo (1) a part of which I like and use in a larger piece, (2) it is not so special that something similar cannot be found anywhere else, (3) I change it to work with my expression of my art, and (4) its appearing in my work will not damage your business or reputation--if all those are met, I am okay. This is from what I've read (I had to do research for students wellness, and always warned them to read up on the subject if they were thinking of appropriation), and is confirmed by the sources listed above. Artists from Michelangelo to VanGogh to Picasso to Warhol have appropriated other artists' and photographers' work, to create something new with it as part of the creation.

It is good to know that copyright was enacted to protect. It protects the creator of a work from having the work taken and used for commercial gain, and to protect the creator's reputation ("brand" as it were). It also protects the primacy of creation, not wanting to freeze images from being re-imagined in new works.

Read. Ask. Be truly creative, not a hack copier.