首页> 外文期刊>Tolley Communications Law >Art, but only for art's sake? Does intellectual property law reflect the commercial realities of contemporary art?
【24h】

Art, but only for art's sake? Does intellectual property law reflect the commercial realities of contemporary art?

机译:艺术,只是为了艺术?知识产权法是否反映了当代艺术的商业现实?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Would the courts refuse to protect art works recognised as iconic by the artworld? To date the courts have not been forced to decide. In Creation Records Ltd & Ors v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Lloyd J, deferred the question saying that 'he did not find it necessary to answer the question' raised by the claimant's counsel of whether it 'might be found that copyright subsisted in Carl Andre's bricks, in stone circles created by Richard Long, in Rachel Whiteread's house, in the living sculptures of Gilbert and George and in the examples of installation art generally'. However, as discussed in relation to the above claims, there are potential difficulties in relation to many contemporary artworks being ascribed appropriate legal protection. The paradox of UK copyright law is that it is at once both over exclusive and under-inclusive, protecting a vast array of works (not traditionally conceived as artistic), whilst apparently denying protection to artworks recognised institutionally by the artworld. As judges and critics have pointed out, this has come to place great strain on the coherence of the system. Whilst the law is distinguished by an approach that is technical, judges have inconsistently used the criterion of artistic intention in difficult cases to deny industrial objects protection as seen in the Metix case. Paradoxically, they have further denied protection to unorthodox works (such as the assemblage in Creation Records) even when artistic intent has been deemed to be present.
机译:法院会拒绝保护被艺术界视为偶像的艺术品吗?迄今为止,法院还没有被迫裁定。劳埃德(Lloyd J)在Creation Records Ltd&Ors v News Group Newspapers Ltd.案中推迟了以下问题,即索赔人的律师提出“可能没有发现卡尔·安德烈的著作权中存在版权”,他认为“他没有必要回答这个问题”。由理查德·朗(Richard Long)创作的石头圈中的砖块,在瑞秋·怀特里德(Rachel Whiteread)的房子中,在吉尔伯特(Gilbert)和乔治(George)的活雕塑中,以及在装置艺术的例子中一般。然而,如关于以上权利要求所讨论的,在将许多当代艺术品归于适当的法律保护方面存在潜在的困难。英国版权法的悖论在于,它既是排他性的又是包容性不强的,既保护了众多作品(传统上不视为艺术作品),又明显否认对艺术界机构认可的艺术品的保护。正如法官和批评家所指出的那样,这给制度的连贯性带来了极大的压力。尽管法律以一种技术手段来区分法律,但在Metix案中,法官在困难案件中始终不一致地使用艺术意图标准来否定工业品保护。自相矛盾的是,他们甚至拒绝承认对非正统作品的保护(例如创作记录中的组合),即使认为具有艺术意图。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号