I don't see that as a similar thing at all. For one, Miles Davis, while not obscure, is not exactly mainstream - especially not since he passed away 22 years ago. And even then, who in the mainstream would even think about his mouthpiece? The only people who would care would be very very thin slice of the population - us trumpet players. It's not like doing a photoshop on someone like Katy Perry, or Miley Cyrus, or (and this is bound to happen soon) Paul Walker - someone completely in the current mainstream. I'm not sure I get the reference to Miles, who was dead before the internet really started to hit the mainstream, and hackers or forum trolls. People who write virus code do it to try to stick it to "The Man" - folks like Microsoft - who ensnare well over half of the computer using population, and when they are successful, they get instant gratification from seeing their handiwork in the news. Forum trolls do it for the instant feedback gratification they get seeing people get worked up over something they posted. Photoshopping a photo of Miles isn't quite in the same category - how could they get any kind of feedback gratification from something so obscure that it might not even be noticed, or only noticed by a small sliver of the population? In this case, we've got ONE person who cared enough to do a screen capture, who then posted it to ask a question. Not trying to pick a fight - it just seemed to me that for many reasons the idea that it was photoshopped is pretty long odds, which is why I thought it was probably authentic.