The rules are there. More like he needs a good attorney. This isn’t new legal territory. It’s been well covered over the years. At the same time the AP photographer was taking his picture, dozens of other news agencies where filming it and have the contextually identical picture. If the picture was used editorially, then Zimmerman has even a stronger case because then it would have been presented to the public contextually as opinion.
News is a whole different beast than say a macro photographer that catches a stunning picture of nature.
I slept at Holiday Inn last night so I’m pretty sure I’m right.
I have a friend who is a painter. She said if a photo is copyrighted, you can’t paint the image per se and call it an original/sell it. Otoh, if you use the photo as inspiration but make at least seven significant changes, the painting is considered original and you can do anything you want w it.
Zimmerman’s painting is too much like the copyrighted photo—almost identical to it overall. He should have made sufficient changes to call it his own. He really does need a lawyer helping him out w this. It won’t be hard to do, once he gets the hang of it.