tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post333901703686969783..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: IPSC part 7: copyright limitationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-43697230027616065272014-08-12T19:26:46.605-04:002014-08-12T19:26:46.605-04:00I don't disagree that it's art at all! I ...I don't disagree that it's art at all! I don't, however, think that all art has to be copyrightable.<br /><br />I can't see the placement as fixation, and I also can't distinguish that "fixation" from the pile of bricks that languishes for a week on my driveway before it's incorporated into my new addition. What makes the placement art is the idea, but that's not copyrightable. <br /><br />Further, I think undesirable policy consequences would follow from finding such a work to be copyrightable, particularly with respect to photographs of the world around us, which would risk infringing if such installations (and anything else that was deliberately arranged in space) were considered copyrightable.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-64585914203897245732014-08-12T18:58:29.550-04:002014-08-12T18:58:29.550-04:00I think you are missing the point about what makes...I think you are missing the point about what makes this installation art. It's not the trailer itself that is copyrightable anymore than the paint with which an artist paints is copyrightable. The trailer is only copyright worthy in that space at that time - that is it's fixation. Or the embodiment of the idea. I think a better right - also elusive in the US would be akin to performer's performance right...Lisa Macklemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11520991485947597912noreply@blogger.com