Regardless of whatever motive or manipulation the artist has done to the WSJ image, it remains a derivative work and is still covered by copyright: http://en.w

Regardless of whatever motive or manipulation the artist has done to the WSJ image, it remains a derivative work and is still covered by copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable."