So if someone makes a forgery of, say, a picasso, who do we blame: The forger or the brush?
This isn't complicated
This concerns copyright law, which is handled case by case, and deals with very fuzzy definitions like "fair use" or what constitutes "transformative works", and things like "impact in the marketplace".
The existence of the forgery isn't the problem!! Selling the forged painting _as if it's the real one_ is the problem (am I missing something?)
In _Tim's Vermeer_ he perfectly (too perfectly) forges a Vermeer. That isn't illegal!! He has it hanging in his home, and whoever is so lucky to inherit it will get to keep it for themselves too.
But if he did it again and then tried to sell it as an original Vermeer - that would be illegal!
Comments
So if someone makes a forgery of, say, a picasso, who do we blame: The forger or the brush?
This concerns copyright law, which is handled case by case, and deals with very fuzzy definitions like "fair use" or what constitutes "transformative works", and things like "impact in the marketplace".
So yes, this is a very complicated topic.
The existence of the forgery isn't the problem!! Selling the forged painting _as if it's the real one_ is the problem (am I missing something?)
In _Tim's Vermeer_ he perfectly (too perfectly) forges a Vermeer. That isn't illegal!! He has it hanging in his home, and whoever is so lucky to inherit it will get to keep it for themselves too.
But if he did it again and then tried to sell it as an original Vermeer - that would be illegal!