What Do Judges Know About Contemporary Art?: Richard Prince and Reimagining the Fair Use Test in Copyright Law

Revista Forumul Judecătorilor, No. 2, 2013

17 Pages Posted: 23 May 2014

See all articles by David Tan

David Tan

National University of Singapore (NUS) - Faculty of Law

Date Written: November 2013

Abstract

Judges are struggling to agree on what is worth protecting under the doctrine of the fair use of a copyrighted work in the art’domain, trying to establish the boundaries from which the work would be considered a new and transformed one. From one point of view, when the (subsequent) artist finishes his work, the meaning of the original (copyrighted) object has been extracted and an entirely new meaning set in its place. If judges insist on the presence of ostensible visual transformation, then many iconic contemporary artworks (e.g. Andy Warhol’s) would be at risk of being destroyed. It appears (as the Supreme Court warned) that would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a work], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits.

Keywords: copyright law, defining art, original works, appropriation art, fair use factor, appropriation style, transformative use, copyright infringement claim

Suggested Citation

Tan, David, What Do Judges Know About Contemporary Art?: Richard Prince and Reimagining the Fair Use Test in Copyright Law (November 2013). Revista Forumul Judecătorilor, No. 2, 2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2439784

David Tan (Contact Author)

National University of Singapore (NUS) - Faculty of Law ( email )

469G Bukit Timah Road
Eu Tong Sen Building
Singapore, 259776
Singapore

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
129
Abstract Views
559
rank
317,874
PlumX Metrics