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:
[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.

No comments: