That is a very good question. The next time I see my friend I’ll plan to ask her. She needs to know this type of thing for her line of work. At the time she was explaining it to me, I was more or less listening politely. I had no personal use for the info. What I gathered, though, was that the image itself, whatever was being painted, needed to differ substantially in at least seven ways from the photo. I.e. merely signing the image wdn’t count as one. I don’t know about changing the color scheme. The underlying image is still the same, so that one may not count either. As mentioned before, putting words over—or under, or beside—the image leaves the image itself unchanged also.
As I said, I’ll need to check back w my friend. I ought to give her a call anyway, so this cd be a good catalyst. Sorry I can’t be more specific. She is a painter, and I’m just her friend.
Zimmerman’s painting instructor said that he advised him to paint this way by projecting an image on canvas.
You would have thought that he would also have advised him on how to avoid copyright violations.
I do notice that there is no cross hanging from the necklace and the earrings are virtually nonexistent — but are those “significant” enough.
If enough “significant” changes are made then you might not be able to tell that it was Angie C.
And then you might enter the realm where you might be getting cease and desist letters from Angie.