Ignore it and it just may go away. Try though we might, it may have been the arguments over the monkey photographs that, of course, pushed the point: This truly has become a stretch, maybe even a silly season for copyright and its extension into popular, creative endeavors and entertainments. Or is it just that too much is expected of statutes that so many think will protect originality, creativity and the unique?

In the late spring, for example, a legal fracas erupted over the facial markings (tattoos) of boxer Mike Tyson, as depicted in the raunchy comedy flick, “The Hangover Part II.”

That prompted some Serious People, legal profs, no less, to speculate as to whether a nose job, such as purportedly undergone by Bristol Palin, the notorious daughter of politico Sarah Palin, could be copyrighted.

In short order, crooner Rhianna found herself embroiled in not one but two legal disputes over the look and her attire (a big dress) in a music video.

As the summer has worn on, a tribute to jazz icon Miles Davis turned into a nasty online spat with blogger Andy Baio and legendary photographer Jay Maisel in its midst.

If that didn’t leave a sting, well, Muhammad Ali Enterprises has taken a swing at a book publisher Kobo over its use in a New York Times ad of the legendary boxer’s “Float like a butterfly …” slogan.

It’s not just Rhianna’s dress that leads some to say copyright should be extended to fashion; the ABA Journal devotes many words to the long-running argument, starting with an anecdote about Prada pumps, that fashion design needs legislation and copyright protection.

And the monkey business that launched this post? Put it in focus: It started when shooter David Slater let Indonesian macques shoot photographs of themselves, on which, he, in turn, and a news agency obtained the copyright, prompting an online buzz about who really owns what.

Really? What do you say about all that?