![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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
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
