George Herbert wrote:
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@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