how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 SandSharkLong may you runPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
kudos:3 | reply to vrp
Re: Is it image theft, or acceptable conceptual art? Conceptual art? I'm not even sure what that means? As far as I know, there is no such phrase in copyright law. If we're talking about derivative works, the offending "art piece" isn't even close to representing a derivative work. Besides that,"[o]nly the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." And fair use is something totally different, which would not apply in this case.
It is copyright infringement, no doubt about it. One would think Ms. O'Grady, being an artist herself, would know better. | |
 SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2
1 edit | I found a dictionary definition for conceptual art, and I do not see how it would apply in this case.
The definition is as follows.
art conveying concepts: art designed to present an idea rather than to be appreciated for its creative skill or beauty, often making use of unconventional media instead of painting or sculpture | | |
|
SandSharkLong may you runPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
kudos:3 | said by SueS:I found a dictionary definition for conceptual art, and I do not see how it would apply in this case. That was the point I was attempting to convey. The author of the blog post seemed to be saying that using the image as "acceptable conceptual art" was, somehow, permitted; thus, he used "image theft" as the antithesis. There is nothing I could find in copyright law that allows someone to use, without permission, a photograph under the guise of acceptable conceptual art and the author of the blog post cited no references for that phrase. Other than the blog post and this thread, a Google search pulled up no such phrase. | |
|
