(Related to this post http://hedcuts.blogspot.com/2009/10/jose-maria-cano-is-con-artist-he-uses.html )
"HOT WAX REMIX"
Credit: commentator "Paul said"
I loved that line so much I copied it, converted it to all caps and made it onto a title!
But seriously...
I need to reiterate a few things which may answer majority of your questions:
I will not sue because I can not sue.
My 5 colleagues and I are staff illustrators at the Wall Street Journal. The hedcut drawings we produce are hand drawn, pen and ink, spot illustrations, using a meticulous and laborious technique closely resembling old fashioned engravings. We base our drawings on photographic reference material, to which the Journal purchases usage rights. The paper owns the license and the copyright to all of our illustrations. Any decisions on legal action in this particular case, are solely theirs to make. For any inquires about Journal's affairs, you need to contact the paper directly. I will not comment on that any further.
However, I do want to participate in this conversation and answer more of your questions, so please don't think I'm ignoring the comment section. ( I have to make a living, you know. Dot by dot). I am intrigued by so many of your points, I wish I could be able to pursue this matter legally, although unfortunately, all signs point to what would turn out to be an unsatisfactory outcome for me. Now we are suddenly reduced to having poetic arguments about the ethics and the integrity of artists, but valid points can surely be made in my favor.
In reference to the Warhol argument. He has defined his artistic interpretation that refutes the legal term "substantial similarity". It's also known that Warhol came to terms with several of parties in question over this issue.
I want to bring up the case of Rogers v. Koons which sets precedent of substantial similarity. The element of size and media used bears no weight in the argument of copyright infringement. Koons lost his argument that the sculpture was a parody of Roger's photograph and of no substantial similarity. This decision, ruled in 2005 would prove difficult for many of Lichtenstein's earliest works, providing the copyright would have been executed by the party in question.
The art of appropriation seems to have no bearing if the artist can prove substantial similarity.
I appreciate all your great comments and input.
And to answer "Hayden" who asks: "His technique is amazing .. (I wonder if you've actually seen one of the works in the flesh)"
Hayden, I'd love to see the Obama wax! I'm sure it's impressive, but I'm afraid I'd find myself looking at my own drawing. Just bigger.
UPDATE 3: http://hedcuts.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-boo-hoo-to-brouhaha.html