It's an interesting conundrum that the artist is forced to settle a lawsuit involving a derivative of a photograph from which he made (presumably) little or no

It's an interesting conundrum that the artist is forced to settle a lawsuit involving a derivative of a photograph from which he made (presumably) little or no money. Meanwhile, he can use both the photograph and the derivative in a medium that generates ad revenue with no fears of copyright law. In the first case, he created something interesting, and his arguments for the symbolism of his piece and the entire project were compelling. Yet this is reasonably likely to not be considered fair use. In the second case, he blatantly displays the creative work and offers commentary on the issue, and profiting here is perfectly fine. This seems somewhat backward to me, so I think th0ma5's comment is interesting.