Since this forum is going down I figured I might as well make this it’s own thread instead of low content. The article, When is Appropriation Just Copying?, is about an artist who saw his work appropriated almost completely, and sold in a gallery for $4,000. The “copier” also did this for another artist, taking photographs and painting/drawing them exactly, and then adding a few details of his own.
Here comes the “kicker”, the artist did not directly engage the appropriator of his work, he merely made a Tumblr post about it, showing his photographs side by side to the appropriator’s pictures. What happens? The public takes note, and his artwork is removed from the galleries, and is ostracized from the art community. This was also the case when such information that this artist was appropriating work in other communities, there was denouncement.
I feel the art community is the most fluid - this is in contrast to the industrial world (what my engineer referred to as “productive art”). It’s the easiest to appropriate, but we see it’s the easiest to be ostracized for these acts when it becomes noticed. In the event above there was no mention of copyright or patents, simply put “that’s not of his own”.
Thoughts on this? I may make this a complimentary post to my first post on IP on VR.