Why would that give someone a pass on copyright law that would, were the copy not deemed fine art, get someone in a mess of legal trouble?
I see a weird connection here with claims of exemptions to copyright violations from people saying that the avi file they have is really just a very large integer.
As iffy as the "is it art" question can be, I think it is safe to assume that if it is on display as art, as these paintings were, then it is art. Being on display makes it clear the intent was for it to be art, which should be enough to answer any legal questions in which "artness" is a factor.
Yes. At the margins, it's a complicated argument. But many people and institutions have purchased Morris's work for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and she has shown all over the world.
Why would that give someone a pass on copyright law that would, were the copy not deemed fine art, get someone in a mess of legal trouble?
I see a weird connection here with claims of exemptions to copyright violations from people saying that the avi file they have is really just a very large integer.