A twisted use of Mickey's likeness for "art"

[jcb]

I could be wrong but I believe that works of art are exempt from the copyright laws otherwise there would be no such thing as satyrical or parody art. But again I could be wrong I am on my Wii so I don't have the resources to back that assumtion up

The more I look at this piece of art the more I can see based upon my own worldview where the artist was coming from, this may be blasphemous but based on my interpritation I kind of like it Not saying that to enrage others just giving my opinion.

You are sort of right. Works of art are not "exempt" from copyright (or trademarks). Without copyright protection, so the theory behind copyright law goes, there would be no "art."

What you are likely thinking about is the "fair use" doctrine. In the US, that doctrine is pretty limited. As the Copyright office says, "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined." (I wouldn't hazard a guess about fair use in Poland.) Even copyright lawyers won't commit to a position on this.

 

[mel&me]

Guess I have to add my opinion on the poster. I don't like it.
My opinion on the artist. Created something that is controversial,
Gained world wide attention over it. Job well done.
Yesterdays news, NEXT.

 

[challer]

Took a quick run into NY's Museum of Modern Art just to keep my head straight about art and what it means to me. I left smiling.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Oh, you beat me to it. I was going to say that I was offended by Dalton's constant use of the ........ as it is clearly a subconscious but obvious misogynistic reference to the menstrual cycle and demeaning to women which clearly means you hate gay people.

As for the alleged 'art' - all I keep thinking is "who knew Mickey had such a hot body?".

Pete

I just saw this.