Vector Art of Existing Images Cannot Be Claimed As Your Own Work

[PepperOrient]

Hello,

I'm into vector artwork, and a lot of the vector world is based off of "vectorizing" existing images. Now, if I were to "vectorize" a photograph taken by someone else and that is protected by copyright, would I need permission from them before I can publish, sell or otherwise distribute the work?

Here's an example:

Assuming that the woman in this vector illustration has no problem with her face being in the work (effectively removing the question of whether or not she'd be okay with having artwork of her face distributed from the equation), could the artist of this vector illustration distribute this work as his/her own without direct permission from the original photographer who took the photograph on which this vector illustration was based?

The vector illustration (I don't have the original photograph, but I'm sure you can assume how the original photograph would have looked):

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs27/i/20...rucasalt82.png

If the vector artist is not allowed to redistribute this image or claim it as his/her own, then to what extent must the image be different from the original photograph to be considered a separate work, and not a "copy" or a derivative?

Is there a particular threshold that helps define when a work is considered a derivative and when it can be called a different work in its own right?

Many artists use reference images, base their artwork on another or find inspiration from other works; so where is the line drawn between copying and infringing upon someone's copyright and simply creating a work that was inspired by another piece of art?

Thank you,

Pepper Orient

[Mr. Knowitall]

Consider the Shephard Fairey case. People make arguments on both sides of this issue, and there's not a solid, clear answer.