Then the is the murky issue of "derivitive work." I had a designer tell me that if a photo is re-shopped enough so that it is only vaguely recognizable as the original, then that is a derivitive work and no longer subject to the original copyright protection. For example he showed me an image of a domed building with gondolas and hitching posts in the foreground. He needed an image to go with publicity for an italian opera. First he mirrored the image so everything was reversed, then he added clouds to the sky, changed coloring of the dome and used the paint funciton in Photoshop to make brush strokes so the final product looked like an oild painting of a building on the water in possibly Venice. Was he correct? Does doing stuff like which renders the original photo changed so dramatically that it would legally fall under the derivitive work definition?