I would have to think some enterprising attorneys could make a case for copyright or trade dress infringement if those in fact are the actual covers.
Under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act ... “Any person who . . . in connection with any goods or services . . . uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive . . . as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or . . . in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act.”
This statute allows the owner of a particular trade dress to sue an infringer (a person/entity who illegally copies that trade dress) for violating section 43(a) without registering that trade dress with any formal agency or system (unlike the registration and application requirements for enforcing other forms of intellectual property, such as patents). It is commonly seen as providing “federal common law” protection for trade dress (and trademarks). Above from Wikipedia.
They also showed that cover on Fox News. Geez, if The North Face can sue the college kid for inventing The South Butt, one would think there might be a case here.