http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/andy-warhol-estate-sues-over-image-of-prince/ar-BBzxXTn?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Works are "transformative and protected by fair use". My Ass!

If I can steal your work and paint it, then claim it's transformative. Nothing is protected.

That's all Warhol and Lichtenstein did...they copied other peope's photos, drawings and designs and claimed they were art. And the public ate it up. For a long time I thought Lichtenstein at least created original paintings that mimicked comics, but then I discovered he actually lifted frames wholesale from comic books and just exactly copied them. The comic book artists he stole from made a pittance while he became rich.

And what about Koons, who made a sculpture of a typical balloon animal and then tried to sue people who "copied" "his" balloon animal by making balloon animal bookends?

y y y, i know where you're getting at.
most recently, i thought i saw some movie stills and i could believe my eyes when i saw the credit line
saying alamy. how did the guy or gal got to submit and get approved still of movies they never
directed or owned???

I thought Warhol was a brilliant innovator, others see nothing worthwhile, and that's ok;  it's what he expected and intended.   It's definitely 'pop' art and not everyone's cup of tea - or maybe I should say, shot of espresso.   

The thing is, though, that he was clever and original in what he did - even when what he did was to copy, modify and re-package someone else's work.  It was ground-breaking at the time, fresh, enjoyable in a new and different way.  Today, there are a thousand Faux Photoshop Warhols without a spark of creativity, and the irony of these talentless hacks making money by Warhol-ing Warhol would certainly have been enjoyed by Warhol himself.   He'd be angry, but I think he'd also feel bad for them, knowing how much fun it was to actually come up with something new that feels like "you", and seeing other people responding to it, maybe even liking it.   

warhol was a copycat simple as, nothing artistic about the man, fake and a con artist that the only artist he was

you said: "If I can steal your work and paint it, then claim it's transformative. Nothing is protected."

copyrights protective creative works. if the painting can be considered an original creative work, then it is fair use.

Never liked the lazily produced work of Warhol. A prime example of The Emperor's New Clothes. His work looks like crap, but nobody dared to say it to his face.

"White Disaster [White Car Crash 19 Times]," as it is formally known, is a work of silkscreen ink and graphite, which depicts the same black and white image of a macabre car accident 19 times on a canvas 12 feet (3.6 meters) tall. just sold for $85.4 million at Sotheby�s in New York

Let me translate the art medium. Silk Screen and Photo Copier.

All this says to me is, there are too many people with too much money who have no sense except to pay a huge amount for the right to own a Warhol. In the future, unlike the great masters, Warhol will be seen for what he was. A trendy name to own for people to have status and brag. It's not about the artwork at all.

Just like so many Warhol works, the original photo artist isn't credited and usually is not compensated a cent!

Where's my 15 minutes of fame?  I'd prefer money...