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

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10111213 141516
171819 20212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 03:55 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios