[B]y dwelling on the surface of the works the court may be turning back the clock a little. ... [I]f the standard is to compare the 'aesthetic' of two works, looking only at 'results,' the court has nothing to go on but the physical changes. So overall, I think the decision sort of de-conceptualizes the art and treats it as merely a bunch of marks on a surface -- very old-timey and reductionist.... [C]ertainly the purpose, context and intent of the five remanded pieces are not much different -- if at all -- from the pieces that qualified for fair use; the only difference is the way they look.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Some incisive commentary on Prince v. Cariou
From Robert Clarida, by way of Donn Zaretsky at the Art Law Blog. Read it all, but here's an excerpt: