Peter Friedman
Lawyer

View Peter Friedman's profile on LinkedIn

Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity

January 27th, 2009 | copyright and fair use, originality, Uncategorized

When does appropriation serve creativity? Quite often, in fact.

A commenter to yesterday’s post on Shepard Fairey’s Obama poster has suggested that I don’t believe in copyright because I believe that, even though Fairey created his image by initially tracing a copyrighted photo, the changes he made to the image and its re-contextualization within the campaign poster might well be sufficiently transformative to make his work non-infringing fair use.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say I genuinely believe Fairey’s image is a creative work in its own right even though it derives from another work.

In that regard, it’s worth noting that Henry McKervey and Declan Long, in “Makers and Takers: Art and the Appropriation of Ideas, write::

[I]t is the expression of an idea which is subject to legal protection. While perhaps this has meant that an artist such as Gillian Wearing can be faced with difficulties over the unattributed re-application of her work, the law also could be said to give artists a relative amount of freedom to take and re-use material in any number of subtly different ways without the spectre of plagiarism remaining ever-present. In a work such as Douglas Gordon’s 24 Hour Psycho, for instance, there is in one sense very little of the artist’s ‘own’ work (Hitchcock’s classic thriller being merely re-played at a radically slowed-down pace) yet Gordon’s intervention makes for a powerful, transformative artistic statement. The question of “knowing originality when you see it” is almost beside the point in cases such as this: artists’ strategies of appropriation prompt questions of originality to become thematically intriguing on, one level, while also being critically irrelevant and, on occasion, inappropriate, on another.

Believing that genuinely transformative appropriation is legitimate does not imply I do not believe in copyright.  It means, rather, that I believe that copyright should serve the only purpose it constitutionally is meant to serve: increased invention and creativity.

And did anyone notice that the John Williams composition played at the inauguration, “Air and Simple Gifts,” borrowed heavily from Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, which itself appropriated a Shaker hymn?

This article has 4 comments

  1. BG Says:

    Copyright is designed to keep creative people creating knowing that they will be acknowledged for their work. That goes for artists and inventors. You need to go back to law school if you think copyright is designed to give other people rights to use copyrighted material. Based on the constitution it serves the individual by allowing them to introduce new works and inventions to the public without 500 other people spitting out their own versions. The idea being that if material is not copyrighted people may decide that there is no use in creating more.

  2. Limkma Says:

    I did not believe, that it acn be possible..

  3. Star Says:

    There is so new for me! Thank you!

  4. Just Says:

    How can I obtani larger information about this theme, except blogs.gedniocity.com?

Add a comment