Yeah, that's a lot worse. That isn't changed at all and is used for the same purpose. No one in their right minds could agree that's legitimate. I think, in this case, we both agree that the images were used as a base source. I think our disagreement is about the amount of change (take the Ben Franklin picture. The face looks so different that, if people didn't know what they were looking for, I don't think most people would have noticed that the image was based on a photograph). Clearly, some amount of change does make the images legitimate, while an insufficient change creates a legal liability.
I think the consequences could be interesting. Most likely, they would not be forced to stop using them, since that would be economic waste without any real benefit. It is possible they would be forced to pay a negotiated price, but, more likely, some kind of objective market value. Given the small size of the images and the fact that they're easily and freely accessible on image searches, I'm not sure if the value would be very high. It's quite possible it would be too low for a lawsuit to be worthwhile. This all being said, I don't think Firaxis acted with bad motive. They're computer programmers, not lawyers. It makes sense to use google image searches as inspiration for such a wide variety of images. My guess is, if this didn't exist, the instinct would be to rely on an encyclopedia, which would have the same consequence.
. He said that this temple image doesn't count as popular, that's the essence
, if it's a well known thing, then you don't have much artistic freedom. But that also doesn't give anyone the permission to copy stuff.
