] Thus, at least according to this court, the more uncommon ] (and provocative) the context of the remixing, the less ] likely it is legal. Of course, this raises the question ] of how new contexts can ever become legal. Presumably, at ] some point in history, no one framed art. Then the first ] person came along and put a painting in a frame. Under ] the theories in Mirage and Munoz, that person would have ] been historically guilty of copyright infringement ] because the context of their remix was uncommon at the ] time. This article is interesting and also deeply troubling. Apparently recontextualization of someone else's artistic work is a copyright infringement EVEN IF YOU PAID for the copy that you are recontextualizing unless there is a specific fair use exception. This is copyright law preventing artistic expression for no financial reason, but strictly to prevent expression. LawGeek: We fought the Kuleshov effect and The Law won? |