Henkilönnimi Forgues, Chantalle R., kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Fair Use in the Rag Trade : In Defense of the Fashion Industry’s Casual Appropriation of Artwork
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot 1 verkkoaineisto (33 sivua)
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, ISSN 2161-9271 ; 46(2)
Huomautus sisällöstä Introduction -- I.Copyright Law: A Framework -- II.Creativity: From Spark to Art in the Modern Context -- A.Rentmeester v. Nike -- B.Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts v. Goldsmith -- C.The Future Face of Copyright Law. -- III.Music & Creativity -- A.Williams v. Gaye -- B.Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin -- C.This Land is Your Land -- IV.Mashups & Creativity -- A.Mashups in Literature: Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix -- B.Mashups in Music: Sampling -- V.Conclusion
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Throughout history, the concept of appropriation has been understood as an act by which an interloper takes the work of another without consent and uses it for a different, typically self-serving, purpose. This concept, however, has become increasingly misapplied by courts in the context of art, and is particularly flawed when applied to fashion art. Recent federal case law purporting to clarify the appropriation doctrine for the art world has only served to muddle it further, as judges have struggled to make determinations on issues of artistry. As such, the existing rules are not only muddy, but also specious, when related to fashion. This Article analyzes the weaknesses in the current judicial framework governing art appropriation and demonstrates why the existing framework should not apply to fashion as a unique and transformative form of art. When France and parts of Italy banned Marithé+François Girbaud’s appropriation of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” in its advertising campaign (Figure 1), it was not because of any ostensible copyright violation. Rather, the advertisements were banned because they made offensive use of religious symbolism. While Marithé+François Girbaud argued that the female version of the fresco showed “the place of women in society today, which is a reflection of our changing values,” a French judge ruled that it presented “a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion of people’s innermost beliefs.” Apparently everyone forgot that the advertisement was based on a painting, and not the Bible. No one seemed to care about whether the advertisement was a transgression against da Vinci. In fact, one might recognize the piece as an extraordinary transformation of his work. In the same vein, there were no concerns about copyright infringement when Yves St. Laurent appropriated Piet Mondrian in creating his iconic Mondrian dress (Figure 2). This is because art appropriation is recognized as a valid, and valuable, artistic endeavor itself. Respected appropriation artists such as Andy Warhol, Sherrie Levine, and Richard Prince have created famously provocative works of art by using the work of others. Many in the fashion industry likewise embrace art appropriation in their own works, as well as in the advertising of them (Figure 3). As discussed more thoroughly in Part I of this Article, fashion itself is art, and fashion artists have created truly remarkable pieces by appropriating others’ artworks. Take, for example, L’Wren Scott’s transformation of Gustav Klimt’s Hygieia (Figure 4). Scott appropriated the original work from a fragment of Klimt’s painting, Medicine, which is one of a series of paintings on the ceiling of University of Vienna’s Great Hall. The splendor of this artistic appropriation is undeniable.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 2161-9271 ; 46(2)
Elektronisen aineiston sijainti ja käyttö (URI) https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v46i2.11020 Linkki verkkoaineistoon
*000 ab a ar
*00121861
*008 s2022||||xxu|||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aForgues, Chantalle R.,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aFair Use in the Rag Trade :$bIn Defense of the Fashion Industry’s Casual Appropriation of Artwork /$cChantalle R. Forgues.
*264 1$c2022.
*300 $a1 verkkoaineisto (33 sivua)
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $atietokonekäyttöinen$bc$2rdamedia
*338 $averkkoaineisto$bcr$2rdacarrier
*347 $atekstitiedosto$bPDF
*4901 $aThe Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts,$x2161-9271 ;$v46(2)
*505 $aIntroduction -- I.Copyright Law: A Framework -- II.Creativity: From Spark to Art in the Modern Context -- A.Rentmeester v. Nike -- B.Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts v. Goldsmith -- C.The Future Face of Copyright Law. -- III.Music & Creativity -- A.Williams v. Gaye -- B.Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin -- C.This Land is Your Land -- IV.Mashups & Creativity -- A.Mashups in Literature: Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix -- B.Mashups in Music: Sampling -- V.Conclusion
*520 $aThroughout history, the concept of appropriation has been understood as an act by which an interloper takes the work of another without consent and uses it for a different, typically self-serving, purpose. This concept, however, has become increasingly misapplied by courts in the context of art, and is particularly flawed when applied to fashion art. Recent federal case law purporting to clarify the appropriation doctrine for the art world has only served to muddle it further, as judges have struggled to make determinations on issues of artistry. As such, the existing rules are not only muddy, but also specious, when related to fashion. This Article analyzes the weaknesses in the current judicial framework governing art appropriation and demonstrates why the existing framework should not apply to fashion as a unique and transformative form of art. When France and parts of Italy banned Marithé+François Girbaud’s appropriation of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” in its advertising campaign (Figure 1), it was not because of any ostensible copyright violation. Rather, the advertisements were banned because they made offensive use of religious symbolism. While Marithé+François Girbaud argued that the female version of the fresco showed “the place of women in society today, which is a reflection of our changing values,” a French judge ruled that it presented “a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion of people’s innermost beliefs.” Apparently everyone forgot that the advertisement was based on a painting, and not the Bible. No one seemed to care about whether the advertisement was a transgression against da Vinci. In fact, one might recognize the piece as an extraordinary transformation of his work. In the same vein, there were no concerns about copyright infringement when Yves St. Laurent appropriated Piet Mondrian in creating his iconic Mondrian dress (Figure 2). This is because art appropriation is recognized as a valid, and valuable, artistic endeavor itself. Respected appropriation artists such as Andy Warhol, Sherrie Levine, and Richard Prince have created famously provocative works of art by using the work of others. Many in the fashion industry likewise embrace art appropriation in their own works, as well as in the advertising of them (Figure 3). As discussed more thoroughly in Part I of this Article, fashion itself is art, and fashion artists have created truly remarkable pieces by appropriating others’ artworks. Take, for example, L’Wren Scott’s transformation of Gustav Klimt’s Hygieia (Figure 4). Scott appropriated the original work from a fragment of Klimt’s painting, Medicine, which is one of a series of paintings on the ceiling of University of Vienna’s Great Hall. The splendor of this artistic appropriation is undeniable.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$amuoti$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4732
*650 7$amuotisuunnittelijat$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p16079
*650 7$avaateteollisuus$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4451
*650 7$akulttuurinen omiminen $2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p35073
*650 7$ataide$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2851
*651 7$aYhdysvallat$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105078
*830 0$aThe Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts,$x2161-9271 ;$v46(2)
*85640$uhttps://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v46i2.11020$yLinkki verkkoaineistoon
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.