'Fair Use' is murky at best, as I understand it the doctrine only applies work intended to comment on something.
It definitely is not a cut-and-dried area of the law, that's for sure. I think commentary (criticism, parody, etc) are what fair use is best known for, but there's an argument that a derivative work that transforms the original is also fair use. I won't go into that too much, because it's a view I have philosophical problems with, and I don't want anyone to sic the OTW on me, lol.
The artist in question is claiming it is a derivative work, which makes it his. I hope he loses, as he has made a lot of money off of someone else. The original photographer or copyright owner deserves at the least credit.
Totally agree as to the original photographer deserving credit.
no subject
It definitely is not a cut-and-dried area of the law, that's for sure. I think commentary (criticism, parody, etc) are what fair use is best known for, but there's an argument that a derivative work that transforms the original is also fair use. I won't go into that too much, because it's a view I have philosophical problems with, and I don't want anyone to sic the OTW on me, lol.
The artist in question is claiming it is a derivative work, which makes it his. I hope he loses, as he has made a lot of money off of someone else. The original photographer or copyright owner deserves at the least credit.
Totally agree as to the original photographer deserving credit.