Are you informing us or asking for further input from this quarter?
While Kis is a unique pop-form & capable of setting its own definition of "originality" in the face of its mediumistic permissions for appropriation (& despite the fact that on my antique browser your discussion of the settlement was obscured by the illustration) -- I think you have enuf clear-cut material for summary judgment. Rosencrantz' post said it all. Between the artist's words & Emby's you have all you need.
Let me give you a piece of advice, you are not practicing formal criticism here, you are merely attempting to enforce rules; therefore you do not need to assess motive intent, yet rather simply ascertain if "X" happened or did not, if "X" is clearly defined by the rules you've laid out then it need not be more complicated.
I realize that you perceive two other complications; one that you made a mistake in not originally attributing the (source of the) work, & two that you want to take the community's temperature in re what we may think "original authorship" means in these derivative, "cut & paste" times -- but really these are completely secondary to your function as an (in this case, judicial) administrator.
In this case, the obvious A is also the "right" A.
Posted on Nov 23, 2002, 3:43 PM from IP address 4.33.84.43