This is what bothers me about the digital age of copyright, if a client has an image in their marketing for years and moves on to a new print vendor. Said vendor does a reasonable attempt to search for licensing rights and documents it, like searching all major stock sites, but comes up with nothing. If they redraw it, is it violating copyright if there is no record of who owns the copyright?... Seems like predatory shadow legality.
Really, art that has survived years of marketing, the customer should have a license (if not own) to be able to use that for their marketing. Of course, maybe their previous vendor had license to use whatever art that was used in that previous marketing.
By this:
...is it violating copyright if there is no record of who owns the copyright?...
Are you talking about if it's registered? Copyright is actually automatic, however, it is easier for the owner of said copyright to prove if they have gone through extra hurdles. Someone has the rights to it already given it's mere existence in this form. Now is possible that this version in question could have violated someone else's copyright of an earlier drawing, but either way, it already exists.
Ironically, it's this digital age of copyright that has in part led to this issue in question in my mind.
It is a jumbled up mess and to me, it's just easier to just do something original (if one is able to).