by Amber Carlson
QUOTE
“The appeals court, which heard the case last May, ruled…that ‘the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture,’ but only that a reasonable observer find the work to be transformative.”
COMMENT
“Secondary use” of material is re-using someone else’s material in what is hopefully an original way. There are schools of art (e.g. postmodernism) that rely heavily on using second-hand material. And on the one hand, as I mentioned in my QCQ response to the article on plagiarism, using second-hand material (as Richard Prince does) can be a valid form of creativity. On the other hand, appropriated material does belong to someone, and that original creator might or might not be okay with their work being used in this way. In this case, Patrick Cariou, the original creator of the photos Prince used in his work, took Prince to court, and Cariou initially won. The case was later appealed, and the appeals court overturned the original ruling. From a legal standpoint, this appeals court has set a precedent where the court gets to decide whether or not a piece of art with appropriated components is “transformative” or not, and that seems like a slippery slope.
QUESTION
When is it okay to use second-hand material? Under what conditions? What would make a piece of appropriated art “transformative”?
vinylrose 