" You're still deriving it, hence the 'derivative' part of the commons license.
If you were to cut that part of the Mona Lisa that were recognizable (which most is anyway) and try to call it your own, would you get away with it? Doubtful. That's MY point. "
You could absolutely call it your own. And thats MY point lol.
This is a very famous work by Duchamp
How bout this one by Warhol...
How many times have you seen this famous image redone? Dozens of times in lots of different ways.
This is an original work of art.
And these...
I would say that the "cropped and distorted" image was Transformative, not Derivative. I would absolutely say that of the "Spanish Tile" work as well.
This from...
http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_works.htm"The question of transformative works is whether a truly derivative work- one that actually uses an original work as a basis for a new work- has transcended the influence of the original and established a presence and importance all its own, nearly independent of the original work. The derivative rights of an author are to protect the exploitation of their efforts, but, when a transformative work distances itself from the original with sufficient force, there is no exploitation to protect. It becomes a truly independent work in the minds of the public.
The case that gives the best example of “transformative use” took the term from copyright and applied it in a case of right of publicity. (Comedy III Prods. Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001).) That case used a pure example of transformative use in the world recognized artwork of Marilyn Monroe done by Andy Warhol. Clearly, the photocopied and colorized images of Marilyn were directly taken from the copyrighted photograph owned by the photographer who took them. By rights, the photographer should be able to protect his property from unauthorized derivative works made from his originals in as far as they impact his economic rights. But the artistry and “Pop Art” quality of the new creations was so original and unique that Mr. Warhol transcended the arena where the copyrights of the photograph could extend and entered a completely different realm. Someone looking at or buying a Warhol print is in no way intending to buy that photo of Marilyn. It's a wholly different object and so isn't an infringement of the photographer's copyright. "
From...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)
"The painting's use does not 'supersede' or duplicate the objective of the original," the judge wrote, "but uses it as raw material in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative."
The "Crop and distort" and "Spanish Tile", uses the original photo in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights....