The single example that you were able to find referencing photography was specifically scoped to artistic works. None of those cases back up the claim that "on-nadir satellite images are not copyrightable".
If it were "crystal clear" you'd be able to find a more specific example, which you can't.
None of the sources you provided attempt to claim that raw, unmodified satellite photos are copyrightable. They all have to do with "enhanced" or "watermarked" photos. There is no question that Google owns the copyright and trademark to their logo, and adding it to an image will allow them to enforce their copyright on its distribution. Additionally, Google has done processing on the photos to remove clouds, add roads, city names, and a lot of other info.
But a claim that a raw, uncreative, unprocessed, mechanically produced photo is subject to copyright would be a major exemption from the requirement that anything copyrightatlbe be significantly creative. Unless you have an actual case involving an unprocessed satellite image, it's pretty safe to assume they are not copyrighted.
If it were "crystal clear" you'd be able to find a more specific example, which you can't.