After our conversation about appropriation, copyright and creative commons I wanted to post some links for further reading.
A couple useful things to note from the article:
"artworks created in the U.S. since 1978 and fixed in tangible form are currently protected in the U.S. even without a copyright symbol or formal registration with the Copyright Office. "
and in terms of fair use:
"In determining whether an appropriation artist’s derivation qualifies as fair use, judges consider not only economic factors, but also whether the use made of the original transforms the material into a distinctively new purpose or message apart from the purposes of the original (as in parody, for example)…The threshold for “transformation,” however, will always be a judgment call."
—Appropriation, guidelines on CAA
So to answer the question raised in class about how much transformation is enough is that it depends. Within this class I would like to address issues of appropriation in terms of creativity and ethics rather than law.
Some questions to consider: Why might parody and satire need to be protected (think of an instance where you need to appropriate in order to critique something)? How might you use the process of transforming appropriated images (your 3rd project) to generate new ideas? If you were the artist whose work was being appropriated what would you consider to be adequate transformation? How might this attitude depend on culture?