Appropriation VS Copyright Infringement
Appropriation vs Copyright Infringement.
Ellie Oram
Ceramics
In the past, appropriation in visual art was a common practice. Many art movements are based around this concept and are accepted within the art world, such as the religious themed artworks of history. These modern times however have seen artists fighting over ownership of images, ideas, and techniques rather than sharing communally, as it looks as though artists from past movements regularly did. With the advent of a firmer idea surrounding ownership of ideas and creativity in the form of copyright, it is becoming harder to distinguish what constitutes as appropriation and when it is fair use of these ideas and creative expressions, versus when infringement on creative rights has occurred. If the modern law were to make concessions specifically for appropriation artwork rather than merely putting it into the category of copyright infringement, the art and culture of modern times would be encouraged to grow and flourish rather than be cut off at the knees.
Appropriation
“Appropriation in the arts is the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them.”
Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art, Oxford
In 20th century art, many examples of this practice are easy to locate, but it is not only within the confines of modern art that this occurred. Art has relied on allegories and religious symbolism for centuries, many artists painted the same landscapes and vista or similar studies of still life, with compositions so alike that without dates one could never be sure who it was that created it first.
Shortly after the turn of the century, modern art started to exist and happen. First with fauvists and the futurists, but with the First World War, a movement known as the Dada movement came into existence in Zurich. A cabaret composed of the usual components paired with nonsensical poetry and plays spawned a movement which would change the
Ellie Oram
Ceramics
In the past, appropriation in visual art was a common practice. Many art movements are based around this concept and are accepted within the art world, such as the religious themed artworks of history. These modern times however have seen artists fighting over ownership of images, ideas, and techniques rather than sharing communally, as it looks as though artists from past movements regularly did. With the advent of a firmer idea surrounding ownership of ideas and creativity in the form of copyright, it is becoming harder to distinguish what constitutes as appropriation and when it is fair use of these ideas and creative expressions, versus when infringement on creative rights has occurred. If the modern law were to make concessions specifically for appropriation artwork rather than merely putting it into the category of copyright infringement, the art and culture of modern times would be encouraged to grow and flourish rather than be cut off at the knees.
Appropriation
“Appropriation in the arts is the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them.”
Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art, Oxford
In 20th century art, many examples of this practice are easy to locate, but it is not only within the confines of modern art that this occurred. Art has relied on allegories and religious symbolism for centuries, many artists painted the same landscapes and vista or similar studies of still life, with compositions so alike that without dates one could never be sure who it was that created it first.
Shortly after the turn of the century, modern art started to exist and happen. First with fauvists and the futurists, but with the First World War, a movement known as the Dada movement came into existence in Zurich. A cabaret composed of the usual components paired with nonsensical poetry and plays spawned a movement which would change the