vamysteryfan: (Default)
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture” but only that a reasonable observer would find the work to be transformative.

The ruling affects the original artist as much as the transformer. The transformative artist made millions from the art he created from the photographs. Is it fair that the photographer didn't share in those profits? Work that appropriates from others is fairly common in current art circles.

The New York Times has an article here

Profile

vamysteryfan: (Default)
vamysteryfan

July 2017

S M T W T F S
       1
2 3456 78
9 10111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 06:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios