I hate having to pull the 'appeal to authority' card, but after over 20 years in design and architecture, where writing contracts dealing with copyright is very

I hate having to pull the 'appeal to authority' card, but after over 20 years in design and architecture, where writing contracts dealing with copyright is very much part of the job, I feel somewhat qualified to pass comment. The linked definition is exactly what I'm talking about. The framing alone is copied. A lack of foreground/background doesn't mean there is no framing. Also the composition and lighting are copied. > "The only similarity is that the subject is copied very closely, but that element of the photo doesn't belong to the photographer anyway." The way the subject is framed, composed and lit belongs to the photographer. It is long established in copyright law, which covers fair use, that the photographer has first copyright on any image they make. If you were to design a new widget and paid a photographer to take promotional images, the image rights belong to the photographer. In much the same way, if you have your portrait taken, whether it was commissioned directly, or by a third party, the image rights belong to the photographer. Claiming that that the only similarity is "Prince" is not looking at the image. The details, such as the specific curls in the hair to the way the shadow falls on the neck are copied directly from the image. So much so that claiming 'fair use' is a stretch, which could have been so easily avoided had the artist, in this case Andrew Warhola Jr., asked Lynn Goldsmith for permission. It is clear to anyone that actually looks at the painting that it is entirely derivative of the original photo. If you'll excuse the pun, it's black and white.