Michael O'Keefe wrote:
DJA wrote:
Michael O'Keefe wrote:
It's no easier to faithfully [copy] a photograph (i.e. to the degree that the
copy has any practical economic value and is not seen as an obvious
fake) than it is a painting or a sculpture.
It doesn't matter, even if it's an obvious fake. There are plenty of
posters around of great paintings and photographs. That's where the
work-for-pay is different for "paper" based art, rather than woodwork or
sculpting. The paper based art is easily reproduced, and the artist
can't "as easily" make money compared to a carpenter or a sculptor
If a copy of an art object is an obvious fake, then it has no intrinsic
value. And unless it is being passed off as having been created by the
original artist (that's called forgery), it existence takes no income
away from that artist. Those posters are not being sold as copies of the
original, and no one confuses them as such.
Because there exists a poster of a great painting or photograph says
absolutely nothing about what, if any, financial arrangements may have
been made by or on the behalf of the original artist.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
