<blockquote>
<p>"Have the couple give you a print to work from. Return the print and sell them your picture. It's technically no different them having a mug made with their picture on it."<br /><br /><br /></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If merely having a print as a guide meant one could copy works and resell them, everyone would be doing it and the copyright system would be pointless. What matters is whether the copyright was transferred to the user or if the license they were granted allowed such activities.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><br /><br />"if you make pictures based on photo and sell them in a gallery, or you artwork is used for advertizing, that is commercial usage and a violation of the photographer's copyright"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While a sale or certain type of commercial use can affect the consequences for infringing, it is not. itself, the threshold of infringing use. An exception being if a license only granted non-sale and non-commercial use but that arises from private dealings that carved out such allowable uses. Another fractional excpetion being part of one of the four prongs of fair use. The latter not at issue here.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><br />because you created a derivative work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Derivative use analysis is not based on advertising or commercial use.<br /><br />With all due respect, Bruce is woefully misinformed about copyright and none of what was said was accurate. I suggest reading copyright.gov and the associated publications over relying on the sketchy internet forum provided notions on legal matters.</p>