Landes, William M. "Copyright Protection and Appropriation Art." The Arts and Humanities in Public Life. Http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf1999/landes.html.

The author begins by bringing up many issues that surround appropriation art. These problems include when art is based on renowned copyrights images, when images are borrowed without appropriate art intent, and when images are used for educational purposes. Instead of lamenting that the grey area of copyright can never be solved, this author takes a different approach. Landes proposes a solution to all these problems. Not necessarily a solution, but a belief that current copyright law can decide these matters.

The article delves into the economics of copyright. Landes discusses how without copyright protection artists would never be able to recoup losses to create art and therefore would be working without incentive. This would lead to a culture devoid of meaningful expression. He argues that there needs to be an appropriate balance between too little and too much protection. This balance would ensure that efficiency and creativity are promoted.

This piece brings up many questions about how appropriation art exists among law, society, and culture. It makes us question the benefits and downfalls of copyright protection. Like many copyright articles, it discusses the Koons v Rogers case. From its analysis, we gather that not all appropriation art should be protected under fair use. Additionally, we see that if it was, courts would be put in the unsuitable position of judging what art is and what is not.

Patry, William. "Appropriation Art and Copies." Http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/10/appropriation-art-and-copies.html. 20 Oct. 2005. 1 Apr. 2009.

This blog begins by giving a definition of appropriation from London's Tate Gallery: "Appropriation art raises questions of originality, authenticity, and authorship, and belongs to the long modernist tradition of art that questions the nature or definition of art itself." Among artists the author names as descendants of the appropriation tradition are Picasso, Braque, Duchamp, Fountain, Dali, Johns, Rauschenberg, Koons, and Levine. The author argues that even though the practice of appropriation is quite old, courts have not been "receptive to fair use appropriation art claims." He cites Rogers V. Koons as an example of this. The article finds two problems in this case: First, a failure to understand that a judgment of "unfair" use does not mean that the court is an art critic; second, the presupposition that just because the art community believes something is art, it can't break copyright law. The author ends the article by noting a divide in the artistic community: those who support appropriation and those who fight against it. Patry finds the divide most fascinating because of the fact that artists who have always been supportive of moral rights undermine themselves with appropriation art (in that, it denies a special connection between originality and the author).

The blog entry proves most valuable to my thesis. It fuels the questions I started off with by giving perspective to the whole appropriation controversy inside and outside the spectrum of copyright. When discussing the existence of appropriation in the art world, it will be important to cite past artists of the tradition and current artists' opinions of ownership.

Here, Chicago Law School lays out the problems and relationship between "copyright law, borrowed images, and appropriation art".  Appropriation art borrows images from the mass media and elsewhere and incorporates them in new ways into art.  The motive is to change the way we look at that object.  There are various problems to the theory including: "A constructs several identical sculptural works based on B's copyrighted photograph or comic book character." which applies directly to Koons, and his work, String of Puppies.  Apart from not being that transformed from the original, Koons' version of the photograph most likely did not take away from the financial market of the original, as the intent of this artistic work is entirely different - it is intended for display in a gallery, or in someone's home.  However, Koons argued that it was fair use on the grounds that he was making satirical comment on mass culture in society.  The court did not buy this defense, as his work did not apply to directly to the appropriated work.  This tag is useful in making us question what exactly constitutes appropriation art, and the relationships between the borrowed images and how they are used.  The fact that appropriation art is part of the history of art acknowledges it as a valid genre or term.  However, Koons it testing those boundaries to the point that he is criticized that he is making a mockery of art.  Appropriation art has other drawbacks in that it goes both ways in promoting new art but at the same time limiting it.  Artists are less likely to come up with their own original images.  The article also underlines that we cannot merely label something as 'art' and therefore expect it to be exempt from copyright.  This would leave judges in a extremely subjective and difficult position of deciding what is art.

As I am getting older, my affinity for shoes and bags is growing with my years. It is not necessarily the name, but the style and the feel, the look of bags and shoes that draw me to spend more and more on fashion. I spend time flipping through catalogues and websites, walking through stores, just appreciating the things I will never own for the financial burden of a shoe and bag obsession has caused a dip in my credit at a young age. However, the abundance of knock-off's for name brands, being sold at much more affordable prices, pose an obvious threat to the fashion aesthete. Just because they look the same, are they same? Who would know? Is the quality the same? The color? Because one brand creates a cute patent leather pump with a rounded toe, and soon after another is selling a shockingly similar shoe, has there been an instance of fashion fraud? Where are the fashion police, the crusaders of all things good and just? Who says what can be determined as having artistic integrity and or intellectual creativity? The moment an idea comes to one's mind, should they file for some sort of protection? The thought process and intellectual property law forever obscure the lines for all concerned about legal protection. Regardless of the medium, intellectual property law is a dynamic field and asks its noble followers to help untangle the messy web of ambiguity. Where do our thoughts and individual creativity meet at the crossroads of copyright and protection? In the fashion industry, one of the world's fastest growing entities as well as large supplier of creative material, intellectual property law and copyright are a new development in the protection of designs and details, sweaters and stitching. Whether in sketch form or in skirt, from the drawing board to the boardroom, fashion copyright is complicated. Can it be protected? When does an instance of 'substantial similarity' become imitation or worse, chargeable theft? Can the line be drawn? If copyright law is extended to include protection for fashion design, will the world of fashion be forever affected? The blurriness in the fashion design industry resulting from the almost counterintuitive cycle of fashion profits spurred by piracy makes it incredibly difficult to decide. Ultimately, copyright protection for fashion design is necessary and without protection, piracy will continue to hinder the progress of creativity and production as well as cause a discontinuity in what can be considered organic artistic thought.

I am working on creating a short video piece using clips from a number of different DVDs. By using short segments (one word or less), I plan to have the characters in the films I borrow from speak out portions of the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In this way, I will be using appropriated (and, most likely, non-DMCA-compliant) video footage to comment on the questions raised by the conflict of the DMCA and appropriation art themselves.

McLaren, Carrie. "Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age." illegal-art.org :: A Project of Stay Free! magazine. 2002. Stay Free! magazine. 22 November 2006. .

This is the web site of the "Illegal Art" exhibition which has traveled the United States in the past year. The site contains a copy of curator Carrie McLaren's introduction to the show, in which she states, "The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out... If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed... Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand? Stay Free! [the magazine sponsoring the "Illegal Art" exhibition] considers these questions and others in our multimedia program." The site also includes a gallery of the various pieces included in the exhibit, which include a Mickey Mouse gas mask, photographs of Barbie dolls in kitchen appliances, a re-interpretation of the Starbucks logo as a "Consumer Whore", and various pieces including the "DeCSS" program.  Many of the artists involved in the "Illegal Art" show were or are the targets of legal action by the holders of the copyrights to the works they appropriated.

The "Illegal Art" website is definitely a valuable resource in the creation of my project; through the gallery of the included works, I will be able to see how other creators used appropriated materials to comment directly on the nature of copyright issues.  The artists involved in the exhibition used many different media to create their pieces, including a number of video pieces. 

Cardamone, Richard J. Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons; Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. National Coalition Against Censorship. 28 November 2006. .

This case is an appeal of the earlier Rogers v. Koons decision. Art Rogers took a photo titled "Puppies", depicting a man and woman holding armfuls of puppies; the photograph became very popular on greeting cards. Later, Jeff Koons took a postcard with the photo on it, removed the copyright notice, and planned the creation of a sculpture titled "String of Puppies." He specified that the sculpture be as similar to the original photo as possible, due to its use in an exhibition titled "The Banality Show" featuring art based on pop culture and commonplace images. Although the photo was in black and white, the sculpture was in full color. Three "String of Puppies" sculptures were sold for $367,000 each. Rogers sued Koons for infringing on his copyright; Koons claimed his work was a parody of the original, and therefore a fair use. The court found that the two works were substantially similar, that Koons had access to the "Puppies" photograph (and, in fact, actively worked to create a piece very similar to the original). The court did not find an specific necessity for the use of the "Puppies" photo that was being commented upon explicitly by Koons' sculpture, and therefore did not uphold his claim of a parody.

This case is very significant for being one of the first instances in which appropriation art came to trial for a copyright violation. Significantly - and keeping with the trend in many later cases - art using appropriated content lost.  Although this particular case had many of the hallmarks of a decision against fair use - willful, known copying, economic profit from the work, etc. - it still shows a tendency of the court to dismiss this kind of art as copyright infringement.  As I will be working with appropriated content on my final project, it is useful to know how court cases involving other appropriated-content works have turned out.

Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons. 28 November 2006. <http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart>.

This article describes "Illegal Art", a traveling exhibition which was displayed at the SF MOMA Artist's Gallery in July 2003. The show contained pieces in a variety of media, with a full-length CD and several films and videos in addition to various two- and three-dimensional artworks. Carrie McLaren, curator of the exhibition, began working on an appropriation art exhibit in response to unsuccessful challenges to copyright term extensions; the goal of the exhibit was "to make copyright's problems as real to the average person as they are to [the] featured artists".

The article attempts to place the "Illegal Art" exhibition in the context of the larger legal debate surrounding appropriation art by comparing the pieces in the show to famous copyright cases, such as the 2 Live Crew case. The author also pays close attention to the economic constraints place on appopriation artists by licensing fees, cease-and-desist letters, and other tools of copyright permission holders. Overall, the article sides firmly with the validity of the art and the necessity for its legalization - no surprise, considering that the article is written for the Creative Commons. Succintly summarizing his point, Slater writes, "Had these legal limitations [on appropriation art] existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish. These days, the implication is that these appropriations are lower artforms, deserving legal treatment suited to petty thievery."

This article will definitely be very helpful for my project; it provides a general background on the use of appropriation art to comment driectly on copyright issues.