[Otto42]

In the specific context of a GPL program, no, but there is case law backing up my argument. Micro Star v. Formgen for example, held that a Duke Nukem 3D map file (which contained no code or anything else from the game itself) was a derivative work because it referenced artwork and other materials from the game's files.

[tzs]

A Kozinski opinion. Those are always entertaining. Most judges write very dry and formal opinions. Kozinski opens with "Duke Nukem routinely vanquishes Octabrain and the Protozoid Slimer. But what about the dreaded Micro Star?"

A key point from the opinion:

"Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3D's protected expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of D/N-3D's is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself--a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun, lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir.1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures."

They use that same notion, that the MAP file is encoding a D/N story, in dismissing the claim that it is the user making the derivative work, not Micro Star. It doesn't seem to be the artwork per se that's the problem for Micro Star--it's that it is telling a D/N story.