tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post3628107998802523954..comments2023-06-20T13:09:56.441+01:00Comments on Art and Artifice: Graffiti and copyright law: a new articleMollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13355163599192206484noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post-12610643174939040622012-05-21T15:39:57.608+01:002012-05-21T15:39:57.608+01:00the key question seems to be: where is going the m...the key question seems to be: where is going the modern Art to? If you accept that an outcome whatsoever originating from an intellectual creative process may be Art, graffiti too can be considered artistic work as weel as the Campbell soup tin of Andy Warhol or the water closet of Marcel Duchamp and to protect them accordingly within the limit of the Law.<br />If you think that Art means something more, you have firstly to agree on that. A mission impossible? <br />stefano sandristefano sandrinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post-4403848358049242762012-05-18T15:57:55.791+01:002012-05-18T15:57:55.791+01:00Thank you for making us aware of this thought-prov...Thank you for making us aware of this thought-provoking piece - a great read to end the (working) week on a high! This article reminds me of a similar discussion in Germany against the background of 'street art', graffiti on the Berlin Wall etc. An excellent contribution on this (in German only) was made by Florian Wagenknecht, "Der Schutz von „Street-Art“ – und die Verwertungsmöglichkeiten von Fotos" (http://www.rechtambild.de/2011/04/der-schutz-von-%E2%80%9Estreet-art%E2%80%9C-%E2%80%93-und-die-verwertungsmoglichkeiten-von-fotos/)Thorsten Lauterbachnoreply@blogger.com