차용미술(appropriation art)과 저작권
Appropriation art and Copyright
4
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Appropriation art is an important post-modern movement. But the artistic practices of appropriation artists, which involve copying images of earlier art works or popular media or advertising, come into conflict with the traditional copyright law. So there are many disputes and litigation. 'Someone v. Koons' is a good example. But appropriation art is not the evil itself. It's not nothing. Even though it's not everything, it's something. One of the appropriation artist, Rauschenberg said that he had received many letters from people expressing their happiness and pride in seeing their images incorporated and transformed in his work. Of course someone who are appropriated, said that he(she) was stunned to see one of his images so obviously borrowed without recognition. But some appropriation art is a viable art form that ultimately benefits society by adding new works to the culture. So it should be protected and preserved. It should Not be destructed and destroyed as the infringing article. One who has a legal profession should be an arbiter and think out the solution. There are 2 meaningful proposed solutions to the conflict between appropriation art and copyright law. One is an expansive reading of fair use defense, the other is the adoption of fine art compulsory license. This paper proposes the latter. In that scheme second artists could appropriate a first artist's work and pay a compulsory license fee. For the introduction of compulsory license there needs to amend the current copyright law. For the amendment this paper introduces Judith Bresler approach. The revised copyright act would create guidelines that both the courts and artists could follow.
Abstract
Appropriation art is an important post-modern movement. But the artistic practices of appropriation artists, which involve copying images of earlier art works or popular media or advertising, come into conflict with the traditional copyright law. So there are many disputes and litigation. 'Someone v. Koons' is a good example. But appropriation art is not the evil itself. It's not nothing. Even though it's not everything, it's something. One of the appropriation artist, Rauschenberg said that he had received many letters from people expressing their happiness and pride in seeing their images incorporated and transformed in his work. Of course someone who are appropriated, said that he(she) was stunned to see one of his images so obviously borrowed without recognition. But some appropriation art is a viable art form that ultimately benefits society by adding new works to the culture. So it should be protected and preserved. It should Not be destructed and destroyed as the infringing article. One who has a legal profession should be an arbiter and think out the solution. There are 2 meaningful proposed solutions to the conflict between appropriation art and copyright law. One is an expansive reading of fair use defense, the other is the adoption of fine art compulsory license. This paper proposes the latter. In that scheme second artists could appropriate a first artist's work and pay a compulsory license fee. For the introduction of compulsory license there needs to amend the current copyright law. For the amendment this paper introduces Judith Bresler approach. The revised copyright act would create guidelines that both the courts and artists could follow.
참고문헌 (22)
- 구본진, "미술가의 저작인격권", 박사, 법학, pp.2010
- 송영식, "｢저작권법개설｣(제5판)" (2009), 세창출판사
- 이상정, "미술과 법" (2009), 세창출판사
- , 2001
- B. Demasin, "Art & Law" (2008), Hart
- John Henry Merryman, "Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts" (2007), Kluwer
- Ralph E. Lerner, "Art Law(vol 2)" (2005), Practising Law Institute
- Simon Stokes, "Art & Copyright" (2001), Hart
- 박성호, "포스트모던 시대의 예술과 저작권(後)", 계간 저작권, (22) (1993), 저작권심의조정위원회
- Ames, E. Kenly, "Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation", Columbia Law Review, 93 (1993)
- Christine Farley, "Judging Art", Tulane Law Review, 79 (2005)
- Debra L Quentel, "'Bad Artists Copy, Good Artists Steal’: the Ugly Conflict between Copyright Law and Appropriationism", UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 4 (1996)
- E. Kenly Ames, "Beyond Rogers v Koons: A Fair Use Standard For Appropriation", Columbia Law Review, 93 (1993)
- Elton Fukumoto, "The Author Effect after the “Death of the Author: Copyright in a Post-Modern Age", Washington Law Review, 72 (1997)
- John Carlin, "Culture Vultures: Artistic Appropriation and Intellectual Property Law", Columbia VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 13 (1988)
- Julie Alane Arthur, "Koons: artist or thief?", Copyright Law Symposium, 통권 : 41 (1998)
- Landis, Copyright, "Borrowed Images and Appropriation art: An Economic approach", Geo. Mason L. Rev., 9 (2000)
- Lynne A. Greenberg, "The art of Appropriation: Puppies, Piracy and Post-modernism", Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J., 11 (1992)
- Richard A. Posner, "When is Parody Fair Use?", J Legal Stud, 21 (1992)
- Sherri L. Burr, "Artistic Parody: A Theoretical Construct", Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J., 14 (1996)
- Willajeanne F. McLean, "All's Not Fair in Art and War: A Look at the Fair Use Defense after Rogers v Koons", Brook L. Rev., 59 (1993)
- "A PennTags project by egreenle, Appropriation art and copyright" (2010)[URL]