But that is not at all realistic.
Plus, in my opinon only, I can see a diference between the performing artists such as musicians and actors and graphic artists such as photographers and painters. Performing artists earn their money from their performances (albums, movies, concerts). As long as it something that is not already comercially available, you are not taking something away from them, you are promoting them. Generally, of course, there are no absolutes in this world.
Gene Simmons, arguably one of the most business minded musicians around, routinely poses with fans who have Kiss tattoo's. I doubt that he has ever asked for the artists names so he can collect licensing fees from them.

 

Except we're talking about artwork. An album cover. And it's reproduction is covered by international and federal copyright laws. Period.

We're NOT talking about anyone using their own talents and displaying some piece of art on their car. READ THE POSTS!

In the case of the OP, he wants to have the cover art on a Beatles album made into a roof graphic. To do that means going to a graphics/vinyl shop. THEY ARE PROHIBITED from reproducing that art for any kind of fee. Even just paying for materiels.

This has never been about the right to display something on the car. DO YOU GET IT!

 

No need to shout. I said I was playing devils adovcate, remember.
And if you read my post, I said I understood that the artist doing the work would be profiting.
The world is not black and white.

 

It is, when you're an artist who has been ripped off by the "if I don't get caught, it must be ok" mentality.

Now, all someone has to do, is send a few emails out to the record company or Apple Corps asking permission to reproduce the album cover on a one time basis, and explaining what will be done with it.

Chances are, they will give permission.

It's not a huge effort to satisfy the law.