Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Copyright Law Blogs -> The Art Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Copyright Law
: The Art Law BlogDistinction without a difference
By Intellectual Property Law, Esq.
One of the artists is quoted as saying, "We had no rights because the piece that we did was in a nonprofit context," adding that if his work "had worn a pricetag and shown in a commercial gallery ..., [then] the artists could sue for copyright infringement."
There's a technical legal term for that: crazy talk.
There's absolutely no distinction for copyright purposes between works created and shown in a commercial gallery and works created and shown in nonprofit spaces (like, say, museums). Now, there may well have been good reasons for concluding that a lawsuit wasn't worth pursuing here, but it's simply not the case that this work was somehow ineligible for copyright protection because it was done "in a nonprofit context."
Full post as published by The Art Law Blog on October 16, 2008 (boomark / email).

More on the Is-Ought distinction
Fundamental Rights and Other Interests - Should it Really Make a Difference
Is the "is"/"ought" distinction so clear in constitutional law
Massive STD Award in Muscatine
Kerr and Volokh on the Nature of Constitutional Law and the Is-Ought Distinction
Court of Chancery Defines Bad Faith, Again








