Re:Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds
by jamesbritt on Saturday June 16, 2012 @08:31PM
(#4121886)
Who decides when something is fine art?
Why would that give someone a pass on copyright law that would, were the copy not deemed fine art, get someone in a mess of legal trouble?
I see a weird connection here with claims of exemptions to copyright violations from people saying that the avi file they have is really just a very large integer.
Re:Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds
by jlgreco on Saturday June 16, 2012 @09:04PM
(#4121940)
As iffy as the "is it art" question can be, I think it is safe to assume that if it is on display as art, as these paintings were, then it is art. Being on display makes it clear the intent was for it to be art, which should be enough to answer any legal questions in which "artness" is a factor.
Fine art is really about invisible distinctions between existing objects, the difference between Duchamp's urinal and any other urinal. Contextualizing something in a contemporary art museum, even a much more direct appropriation than this, radically transforms it. In my view, applying intellectual property violations to contemporary artworks is at least as insane as any of the software patent shenanigans we have seen. No one is happening upon Morris's work and thinking she is a great origami designer.