Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons. 22 November 2006. .

This article paints the picture of a current dispute going on where copyright seems to infringe on an artists' freedom of speech, limiting their ability to display their creativity. The article explains how artists take a mainstream icon or item and have changed it with the hope of contributing social commentary. The article illustrates a current example of artists attempting to voice their creative right, but being limited by the restraints of copyright. The artists find themselves limited by the degree that they can use a copyrighted icon as inspiration for their commentary without getting in trouble. The article also brings up how artists are often limited by financial resource to fight the corporations that own the copyright. The article addresses the traveling exhibit "Illegal Art" and argues for the right of the artist, making specific note of how Congress' wish to extend copyright terms will, as copyright law does, further limit the ability of artists to produce creative works.

For example, an artist altered a Starbucks logo and it reads "Consumer Whore." In the artist's attempt at social commentary, his art may be breaking copyright law. Without permission from the copyright holder, one can avoid copyright infringement by proving fair use. Copyright law, which was originally "considered an engine of creativity, can stifle art and free speech." The article argues that the original goal of copyright was to allow "artists to build upon a rich array of past works," displaying the opinion that the goal of copyright was to further creativity. The article displays how clearly creative works that provide criticism and commentary are stifled in their display because of copyright law.

The fair use exception that limits a copyrighter's exclusive rights includes criticism or comment that is contained in the work. The article states, "The law presumes that sampling intends to undermine the work of others." This was clearly not the case with the "Illegal Art" exhibit, as the artists' main goal was to provide social commentary. One can also see a similar situation with movie editing, as ClearPlay and Clean Flicks were interested in providing an appropriate way for their children to enjoy movies and their editing inherently provides social commentary and criticism. This article is an example of copyright law not being adequately balanced the fair use clause.

Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons. 28 November 2006. <http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart>.

This article describes "Illegal Art", a traveling exhibition which was displayed at the SF MOMA Artist's Gallery in July 2003. The show contained pieces in a variety of media, with a full-length CD and several films and videos in addition to various two- and three-dimensional artworks. Carrie McLaren, curator of the exhibition, began working on an appropriation art exhibit in response to unsuccessful challenges to copyright term extensions; the goal of the exhibit was "to make copyright's problems as real to the average person as they are to [the] featured artists".

The article attempts to place the "Illegal Art" exhibition in the context of the larger legal debate surrounding appropriation art by comparing the pieces in the show to famous copyright cases, such as the 2 Live Crew case. The author also pays close attention to the economic constraints place on appopriation artists by licensing fees, cease-and-desist letters, and other tools of copyright permission holders. Overall, the article sides firmly with the validity of the art and the necessity for its legalization - no surprise, considering that the article is written for the Creative Commons. Succintly summarizing his point, Slater writes, "Had these legal limitations [on appropriation art] existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish. These days, the implication is that these appropriations are lower artforms, deserving legal treatment suited to petty thievery."

This article will definitely be very helpful for my project; it provides a general background on the use of appropriation art to comment driectly on copyright issues.

Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons.

    This article comes from the Creative Commons website, whose goal is to “enable the legal sharing and reuse of culture, educational, and scientific works.” This site essentially promotes the same idea as Lessig and my paper, which is that current copyright law has its flaws and in fact inhibits creativity.
    The article reviews the art exhibit “Illegal Art,” which was featured at San Franscisco’s Museum of Modern Art. The exhibit asks the question, “Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand?” (illegal-art.org). The exhibit was made up both of the visual and audio components, aiming to highlight “how copyright, typically considered an engine of creativity, can stifle art and free speech.”
    The curator of the show, Carrie McClaren, explains how this show was created partly in response to the disappointing Eldred v. Ashcroft decision regarding copyright extension. The ruling allowed copyright protection to last 95 years or life plus 70 years. As a result, many artists must obtain permission from the original author, who holds certain exclusive rights, in order to reuse a copyrighted work. Slater notes, “ever appropriation is presumptively a misappropriation”**
    The “Illegal Art” exhibits works which “take elements of our mass media environment to express how the artist feels about our culture” – similar to many modern and post-modern art styles that I am writing about in my essay. Slater describes some of the showcased work, using them to discuss a wider landscape of legal cases involving derivative works. He argues that “the lack of a clear, consistent fair use doctrine has created a strong chilling effect on “Illegal Art” parodists and others like them, as the law is quick to side with original authors, and poses serious obstacles to appropriation artists who may not be able to afford litigation. Even if a new work which borrows from an old is “highly transformative or borrows only trivial portions,” the legal system seems content in finding in favor of the original copyright holder.
    He moves to music sampling, using The White Stripes and U2 as two groups who were ok with their songs being sampled. Nevertheless, lawsuits still occur. Slater states, “had these legal limitations existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish.” This idea is key to my essay, as it raises an important issue about the future of both music and art in terms of current copyright law. Further important to my paper is a quote by Mark Hosler of Negativland about collage art and its legitimacy of an art form.