The general rule is always that the use of another's creative work without a license is copyright infringement, unless the copyright on the work is expired, and the work is now in the public domain.
The defense to infringement is "fair use." 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107. Use of another's work is "fair," in a commercial setting, where it is "transformative," which means that the creative purpose of the new use provides an entirely new meaning to a preexisting work. The case that most closely mirrors your facts is: Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006), which is summarized as follows: "Artist’s use of copyrighted photograph from a fashion magazine in his collage painting was fair use; the use of the photograph was transformative, since it was used as part of artist’s commentary on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media, artist copied a reasonable portion of the photograph to fulfill his purpose of conveying the ‘‘fact’’ of the photograph to viewers, and his use had no deleterious effect upon the potential market for or value of the photograph. 17 U.S.C.A. § 107."
That probably sounds pretty good to you. The problem is that Mr. Koons probably spent $250,000 litigating that decision. Consequently, fair use, while it may seem to be a great option on the surface -- it can frequently lead to a protracted litigation with the copyright owner -- and in the end, even if you win -- you lose.
Anyway, that's how the law shakes out in this circumstance. I can't review the actual collage in this forum. We'd have to take the discussion offline, and I'd be charing you by the hour for my time -- probably not what you're looking for.
I hope I've answered your question. Please let me know if you require further clarification. And, please provide a positive feedback rating for my answer (click 3, 4 or 5 stars) -- otherwise, I receive nothing for my efforts in your behalf.
Thanks again for using Justanswer!