![]() All Flyers Are Birds: Creatures that can fly, but aren't birds, do bird things.All Animals Are Domesticated: Wild animals never get mad, or if they do, never dangerously so.All Animals Are Dogs: All animals behave the same way as dogs.It takes at least twenty-five breeding pairs to prevent the population from dying out due to complications caused by inbreeding. Adam and Eve Plot: Two individuals do not provide enough genetic variability to produce a viable population.AB Negative: Everyone has an uber-rare blood type.Their snouts are also portrayed as expressive. Aardvark Trunks: Aardvarks, anteaters, echidnas, and pangolins depicted with flexible snouts much like the trunk of an elephant. ![]() 90% of Your Brain: The myth that average people only use 10% of their brains.“Maybe it’s time,” Fromer suggests, “to revisit the norms that are embodied in copyright law. What both papers imply is that US copyright law as it stands and is implemented might not completely meet the needs of artists who are looking to protect their intellectual property-or artists whose creativity involves experimenting with existing works. However, as detailed in Adler’s joint paper with Fromer, many of those artists have found other creative ways beyond litigation to respond to questions of copyright infringement. “Prince functions like King Midas it is his touch… that turns previously worthless material into art,” Adler writes.įor artists whose financial success depends on selling copies of their work-commercial illustrators, musicians, film makers, and writers, among others-the power of authenticity does not replace copyright law as a method of intellectual property protection. Going back to Richard Prince-who is known for appropriating and re-photographing other artists’ work-Adler explains in this paper that the value of Prince’s work resides more in the fact that he chose the image than in the visual image itself. “That means that if you steal someone’s visual content, you can’t steal the value of the work unless you forge the name,” Adler says. Once its lack of authenticity was revealed, the painting’s worth disappeared a lawsuit against the gallery resulted in an undisclosed settlement. As an example, Adler describes a Rothko painting that sold for $8 million and was described by art critics as “sublime,” before being revealed to be a forgery. The art market, Adler explains, prizes scarcity rather than volume, and authenticity above all: “Authenticity in the art market… polices the relationship between copies and originals,” she says. Fromer suggests that this type of context is more likely to be revealed in litigation.Īdler takes a step further in a recent George Washington Law Review article, “Why Art Does Not Need Copyright,” arguing that copyright protection is not necessary for fine art. An artist could be shamed for apparently copying another’s work-when in fact both were taking part in a long tradition of artists borrowing from each another. We didn’t really have such platforms in the past.” At the same time, she cautions, it can be difficult-particularly on social media-to convey nuance and context. “In the article, we raise the possibility that maybe we’re coming to a point where law is less relevant,” Fromer says. “Now, we have these social-media and other internet platforms to announce copying and shame people for having copied. In their paper, Adler and Fromer trace how fashion companies, designers, and music creators have also turned to shaming and re-appropriation to protect their intellectual property, often using social media as an amplifier for their actions. They “achiev an immediate sense of vindication, spreading their fame, making money (for charity), and gaining new admirers for their vigilante response,” Adler and Fromer write. Their profits were donated to charity.Īdler and Fromer note that the Suicide Girls enacted a kind of “public revenge” on Prince without litigation. New Portraits resulted in four copyright lawsuits against Prince, but Adler and Fromer highlight the response of a particular group of Instagrammers, the “Suicide Girls,” whose posts had been included in Prince’s show: They made copies of Prince’s images added their own comment, “true art,” on each one and sold them for an affordable $90 apiece, a fraction of the $90,000 Prince charged for each of his works. In one news-making instance of copyright controversy, the artist Richard Prince’s 2014 art series, New Portraits, was composed of large copies of other people’s Instagram posts-each with an Instagram comment added by Prince.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |