3 ms·
I've never heard of the "artist stature" theory regarding what is copyrightable; the only time I've heard stature come into play is related to derivative works
by mnutt 15y ago
I've never heard of the "artist stature" theory regarding what is copyrightable; the only time I've heard stature come into play is related to derivative works and destroying sculptures. What ruling would apply here?
- bluekeybox 15y agoI'm not a lawyer, but from my experience with art, if two people go out for a walk, and one of them is a big-name photographer, and a picture is taken that has some interest, and it is unknown who exactly took it, there is almost no chance in hell that the lesser-known person will be able to successfully claim copyright. The reasoning is as follows: (A) the picture that was taken is interesting in some way, otherwise nobody would fight for copyright to it; (B) everything else being equal, a well-known photographer is much more likely to take an interesting picture than an unknown one. Given (A) and (B), most courts would lean towards the established artist in this case.
- nate_meurer 15y agoBeing a gentleman of precision, you might provide an example to support your assertion -- some kind of legal precedent or ruling perhaps.
- bluekeybox 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropriation_art_and_copyrights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropr...
- nate_meurer 15y agoThis wikipedia article has nothing to do with your vague assertions above, except for the bit that directly contradicts you: "Though he claimed fair use and parody in his defense, Koons lost the case, partially due to the tremendous success he had as an artist."
- bluekeybox 15y agoYou don't understand. The article mentions Koons' case only because it is so unusual. Anyone who understands art typically agrees that Koons should have won. In fact, this case could be used as a way to gauge someone's grasp of what contemporary art is.