> Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am thre

> Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Look. If you are an artist, not only do you infringe on countless "copyrights" (have to use quotation marks because I am not talking about literal copyright), but many other artists also infringe on yours. There. EDIT: Have to expand a bit on copyright. The reason I wasn't talking about copyright in a literal way is because art has its own system for dealing with "copyright" infringement (actually a superior one, one that is closer to how free market works than to how law works), distinct from legal action. Legal action usually only comes in when (a) there is significant money involved, (b) when hard evidence could be readily used, and (c) when dealing with low-end and mass markets such as popular photography. Hard evidence in art is usually very difficult to come by (as you might have gathered from my "appeal to own authority" response). The system for dealing with copying is simply that when a work is labeled derivative by a large enough number of people in-the-know, its value in the high-end market evaporates. Most other spheres (e.g. tangible goods market) don't have such system in place and therefore have to rely on the legal concept of copyright. ANOTHER EDIT: Seems like you are a kernel hacker, so my hat is off to you. Just want to let you know that the concepts we are talking about in art do not translate well into software (derivative software is still useful, often more so than what it was derived from, while unoriginal art is just that).