Copyright Protection of Appropriated Art: Free Use or Transformation of a Pre-Existing Work?

Appropriative art, i.e., the result of deliberate processing of someone else’s work or part of it, carried out in order to demonstrate one’s own creatively independent artistic declaration, de lege lata falls under the category of a derivative work. Neither Russian law nor foreign legal regulations establish a special exemption from the exclusive right, similar to the exemption applied to works in the genre of parody or caricature, the creation and use of which is considered as a case of free use of the original work. Analysis of foreign judicial practice shows that in the absence of such an exemption, the only remedy against the claim of the copyright holder is a reference to the parodic nature of the result of processing. Meanwhile, courts are reluctant to extend the regime of parody to the appropriative art. American copyright law forms an exception that allows the court to use the transformative test within the framework of the fair use doctrine. According to the test, the use is considered fair if the author, as a result of processing pre-existing work, transformed it into his own artistic statement and (or) his own aesthetics. However, this approach has significant drawbacks, in particular, it directly forces the court to evaluate the artistic merits and significance of a derivative work. Thus, unlike parody, appropriation as an established and recognized art practice has not yet found a decent place within the framework of the institution of free use of the work.

1. Androshchuk G. Avtorskoe pravo v apropriativnom iskusstve: doktrina i praktika // Intellektualnaya sobstvennost. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. — 2016. — № 2. — S. 58–68.

2. Vitko V. O pravovoy prirode parodii // Intellektualnaya sobstvennost. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. — 2019. — № 4. — S. 5–14.

3. Vorozhevich A. Parodiya kak sluchay svobodnogo ispolzovaniya obekta avtorskogo prava // Intellektualnaya sobstvennost. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. — 2019. — № 10. — S. 15–22.

4. Vorozhevich A. S. Granitsy isklyuchitelnykh prav, predely ikh osushchestvleniya i zashchity: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2021. — 546 s.

5. Zykov S. Problema otneseniya parodiy k proizvodnym proizvedeniyam: ne pora li stavit tochku? // Intellektualnaya sobstvennost. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava. — 2017. — № 4. — S. 41–46.

6. Pravo intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: uchebnik / pod obshch. red. L. A. Novoselovoy. T. 2: Avtorskoe pravo. — M.: Statut, 2017. — 367 s.

7. Pravo intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: uchebnik / pod red. I. A. Bliznetsa. — M.: Prospekt, 2011. — 960 s.

8. Sergeev A. P. Pravo intellektualnoy sobstvennosti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: uchebnik. — M.: Prospekt, 2007. — 752 s.

9. Geiger C. Contemporary Art on Trial — The Fundamental Right to Free Artistic Expression and the Regulation of the Use of Images by Copyright Law // Digital Ethics: The Issue of Images / ed. by T. Dreier, T. Andina. — Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2022. — P. 387–415.

10. Jacques S. The Parody Exception in Copyright Law. — N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2019. — 298 p.

11. Leenknegt P. The moral right of Jeff Koons // Art & Law / ed. by B. Demarsin, E. J. H. Schrage, B. Tilleman, A. Verbeke. — Brugge: Die Keure, 2008. — P. 264–288.

12. Leval P. Toward a Fair Use Standard // Harvard Law Review. — 1990. — Vol. 103. — № 5. — P. 1105–36.

13. Moskowitz B. Toward a Fair Use Standard Turns 25: How Salinger and Scientology Affected Transformative Use Today // Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal. — 2015. — Vol. 25. — № 4. — P. 1057–94.

14. Schaumann N. Fair Use and Appropriation Art // Cybaris. — 2015. — Vol. 6. — № 1. — P. 112–37.