But yes they did, very efficient.
Copyright law is not designed to stifle the sort of investigation you produced.
Fair use is the most abused excuse for copyright violation. But it has its place, an important one. From wiki on fair use: "Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship."
^Where does "examination of an idea" show up in the definition above? The original was changed, bottom line. It wasn't research it was an appropriation, unapproved too.
Obviously the copyright holder didn't agree with the appropriation either.
I have to agree with Andy, not sure what dehk did falls under fair use. After all, Avedon shot lots of color over the years, it's not like we don't know what those color pictures look like, and frankly, it seems a bit off topic here to discuss one's digital skills with coloring pix that we don't own in photoshop. Now, if he had purchased those prints and hand colored them, that would be a far more appropriate exercise for our purposes here. :p
Seriously? Now it turned into me showing off my digital skill? Wow.
- Original purpose was to show what if certain photos by Richard MIGHT have look like if they were in color. Out of curiosity.
- No and I am not saying you or anyone do not know what color photos looks like. Are you?
Somebody just need to close this thread.