Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy, would certainly normally be copyright infringement. (A logo may not be enough of a creative work to be copyrightable, but I assume that's not what you're getting at).

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy, would certainly normally be copyright infringement.

In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark.

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy

Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge). For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version.

> (A logo may not be enough of a creative work to be copyrightable, but I assume that's not what you're getting at).

A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright.

In your example, if someone draws from memory a logo, they actually own the copyright, but it is still Trademark infringement and the trademark owner will be protected.

> In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark.

It's not a nuance, it's a completely separate legal regime, and not what this conversation is about.

> Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge).

Every law can be challenged in court, but a copy of a picture as-is is a pretty clear-cut case.

> For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version.

Nope. She's able to because there is a compulsory license for covers of songs that have already been published - something very different from them not being protected by copyright - and/or because she owns some of the rights. She may well be paying royalties on them. That compulsory license regime is specific to recorded music and does not apply to pictures.

> A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright.

"More" is a simplification; trademark laws are quite different from copyright laws, stronger in some ways and weaker in others (e.g. you can lose a trademark by not enforcing it, whereas you cannot lose a copyright that way). In any case, that's a distraction from the current topic.

> "seeing something and then drawing it" is in general not copyright infringement.

It's seeing something, drawing it, and then distributing that drawing which is infringement. Bonus points for the distribution being a sale.