[WikiEN-l] Copyright status of drawings based on photos

[George Herbert]

On 6/12/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a
> lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from
> works which don't do a lot of transformation.

Good example here is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

Koons turned Rogers' photographic postcard into a sculpture, with a
couple of tiny details changed, but the other details intentionally as
close as possible.  Courts held it to be copyright violation.

In the case of the inspired drawing, the details are intentionally as
far as possible, given the reinterpretation in .. charcoal?   The only
carried over elements are compositional, and it's pretty transformed.

The lack of any commercial value of the derived product also makes it
more likely to pass muster.

I would say, no worries, for using it on WP.  It might be a marginal
concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial
use.


-- 
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com