A bit cryptic but I see where you are going. In this particular case the judges are challenging the “total concept and feel” test that is the standard. They say it's way too nonspecific to make a legal standard.
Duchamp's original jam was to say "put a bird on it" and now it's art. I think.
"Put a body under it, and its irreversible IPR theft with no recourse"
Da Vinci wasn't around to sue. But the gallery was. Where's Miles's estate in this anyway? Or are we stuck on the photographers moral right to a repro of Miles?
(I hated the hairdo. That wet look does nothing for me. Got no complaints about the music)
L.H.O.O.Q
A bit cryptic but I see where you are going. In this particular case the judges are challenging the “total concept and feel” test that is the standard. They say it's way too nonspecific to make a legal standard.
Duchamp's original jam was to say "put a bird on it" and now it's art. I think.
"Put a body under it, and its irreversible IPR theft with no recourse"
Da Vinci wasn't around to sue. But the gallery was. Where's Miles's estate in this anyway? Or are we stuck on the photographers moral right to a repro of Miles?
(I hated the hairdo. That wet look does nothing for me. Got no complaints about the music)