Stew.. there are better qualified to answer that question, and surprisingly - we just had such a discussion on the CGC comic boards about Roy Lichtenstein and opinions differed
my opinion is that Warhol has used the soup can as an icon and created a wholly new product that was for sale as objet d'art
I'm not sure if they were meant to be reproduced and sold as prints or just as the solitary paintings. Lichetnstein did not sell prints until later in life - he sold the paintings, ergo he has created a wholly new object. I do not believe he would have been able to photograph the soup can and sell posters of that photo legally however as he has created nothing
In today's world, I wonder what would happen if Warhol or Lichtenstein did the same thing. In our litigious and anti-art world today, I suggest they would both be sued - even if such cases had no chance of winning, which is why people don't bother selling Disney or Star Wars items that are not licensed. There is certain to be some Disney material that is in the public domain, but Disney buries you in legal fees defending any such rights you have to replicate the material, ergo - there is no upside
your Mel example is probably incorrect also.. it's still just the original image with no modifications.
a better example.. My photo of posters and art on the wall of my (now closed) gallery is fully copyrighted regardless of what posters are shown as the posters are not the purpose of the photos, illustration of my gallery is the purpose.
