Davis, Douglas. "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction." 1995. Third Annual New York Digital Salon. JSTOR. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576221>.

When writing a paper about appropriation, it is important to get theoretical perspectives of how appropriation exists in our current digital revolution. The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction is less of a response to The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction than one would think. The author simultaneously updates and adheres to the latter.

Davis argues that in this world of digital reproduction there are no direct differences between the original and appropriated work. Benjamin's aura now merges with the original and reproduction. In this age of digitization, everything can be perfectly copied. We are forced to address how the contemporary world around us is essential to our understanding and use of appropriation. One can make changes to an original in an instant, but what does this mean? All of these things have infinite psychological and cultural implications (i.e. the culture police). The copied art can bring infinite pleasure and improve upon the original. Davis ends by saying, "Videotape...here is where the aura resides--not in the thing itself but in the originality of the moment when we hear see, read, repeat, revise."

Bridgeman Art Library, LTD v. Corel Corp. ended the argument that exact copies of any material are not copyrightable. For example, the Mona Lisa is a public domain work. However, collage artists found that when they wanted to get a reproduction of the Mona Lisa to use in their works, they still had to pay high licensing fees because the reproductions were copyrighted by the reproducers. The reproducers argued that because it takes great skill and effort to create a perfect reproduction of a painting. While the court admitted that although it is difficult to create a perfect reproduction of a work, the fact that the reproduction is exactly that - an exact reproduction - no artistic value added. Therefore the reproductions are not copyrightable.

This decision is important because it enabled collage artists to use public domain material in their works without having to make the reproductions themselves or getting a license from the museums or private collectors who were making reproductions of public domain works of art. Essentially, this court decision makes collage a potentially legal and viable art form. Without this case, collage artists would be basically without a means of accessing public domain works for use.