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

[John Lee]

George Herbert wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Provided we use it under fair use, I presume? Non-commercial-use only 
works have been verboten for quite some time.

John