I found that article really interesting. One question that stuck out in my mind was that Andy mentioned having gone to the efforts to licence the music from the

I found that article really interesting. One question that stuck out in my mind was that Andy mentioned having gone to the efforts to licence the music from the original publishers, for the 8-bit cover versions. But then having gone through that process, why would it be natural to assume that the original album artwork would not be equally in need of licensing if it were to be reproduced in a derivative form? Much of the same arguments apply - if the use was transformative then there would have been no need to pay for the music or the artwork. Yet it was recognised that payment for the right to cover/derive from the music was necessary, so it would seem logical to apply the same perceptual standard to a no-less-copyrighted piece of artwork. Much sympathies to Andy, though, as it doesn't sound like a fun time to have to go through something like that over a project that was fundamentally well-meaning.