The Urinal Is Not Copyrighted, Stupid
Barbara Pollock opines on the continuing saga surrounding appropriation art, copyright, and fair use. We applaud her approach, which gives ample amounts of space to both sides of the argument and for the first time allowing for the deconstruction of the erroneous comparison between Duchamp and appropriation art. Here’s Dan Brooks:
“It’s one thing for Marcel Duchamp to have taken a urinal and appropriated it. A urinal is not copyrighted,” says Dan Brooks, Cariou’s attorney. “These [Cariou] images that were appropriated [by Prince] were copyrighted, and there has to be some reason that they were taken other than that Richard Prince liked them. You understand? Anyone could say, ‘I am an appropriation artist,’ and they could take anything. Where would you draw the line?”
Via ARTnews.
Tags: appropriation, art, cariou, fair use, intellectual property, law, photography, pictures generation, pop art, prince
Comments