Artistic Appropriation, Copyright and Creativity Literature review

Artistic Appropriation, Copyright and creative thinking - Literature review ExampleCollage is a type of annexation. Different parts of copyrighted defecateing are incorporated in a random manner to form a totally variant and new work not previously existed. Aim This literature review aims to explore the different scholars views in the favor of the statement that modern scope of copyright restricts the culture of collage and visual arts appropriation as well as the views of scholars against this notion. Objectives 1. What is the concept of appropriation? 2. What is the modern interpretation of a copyright? 3. What is the have-to doe with of copyright on the creativity and advancement of artistic knowledge? 4. How practice of appropriation can succeed in the technological age? 5. What are the alternative approaches to use copyrighted works without resorting to an infringement? 6. What works are appropriated and are considered enforceable in the courts of law? 7. Are there any th eories for copyright and picturesque use? 8. Is there any case law available related to appropriation and copyrights? 9. Who are the authors in favor of the statement and against it? Literature Review Lankford (2011) explored the history of the practice of appropriating visual arts. He argued that this practice dates back to Greeks period who invented the technique of appropriation. ... The author further observed that as a result, the artist freely appropriated different works to form a collage work (Cohen, 2011 p.89). The modern copyright law has its roots in the Statute of Anne of 1710 that recognized author rights in a certain but limited manner (Pedley, 2005). Hampel (1992) argued in the favour of artists appropriation. He postulated that the appropriation does not deprive the copyright holders of their copyrights and any of their pecuniary benefits. Therefore, Hampel (1992) required that they should be free to use the separate artists works without seeking sureness or li censing. Furthermore, Meyers (2006) highlighted that the copyrights law discourages the artists to expand and innovate in their works. The author forcefully disagreed with the licensing and authorization requirements to initiate an appropriation of visual arts, which drags on the time frame for its completion. Davies (2010) an advocate of copyright law provides that the term copyright literally means the right to copy. He postulated that the appropriation of visual arts in the form of a collage work is a copyrightable subject matter as it is an expression in physical form quite of a mere idea that has no physical form for claiming intellectual property rights over it. He provided that when a work is applied for copyright registration, the Intellectual Property Office of United Kingdom examines the work in terms of its cowcatcherity, degree of labour, skill or judgement exhibited by the work. Davies (2010) provided that the work has to be original and should not be similar to other s copyrighted work otherwise it will become an infringement of others copyright. The