Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Morgandude11, post: 2314500, member: 37839"]If one were "stealing the design" in creative matters, every single movie ever made would be theft.  They are all based on a pre-existing design---a book or play.  Likewise, all operas are theft using this logic, as they have a libretto.   Same logic would apply to most art, most definitely photography.  Since one did not create the scene themselves, it would be considered derivative??   Using that approach, just about any creative undertaking would be "theft,"given that most creations are inspired either partially or DIRECTLy from an original source.  Does that render them "theft," or creatively inspired?  I would go with Daniel's analogy of the Campbell's Soup can as a good archetypal example of creativity in action--he parlayed an existing object into something different, and founded a new medium for expression. I see nothing different in Daniel Carr's process, and in no way could I compare him to a "cheap counterfeiter"  Remember, those of you who know my tastes in coins--I was skeptical of his work, and originally was likewise critical, until I RECEIVED THE ITEMS in hand.  That immediately changed my mind to be a supporter of his work, as the artistry was immediately apparent, and it was NOT a cheap copy or fake--it was artistic expression.  Once again, for the umpteenth time, it is not counterfeiting--it is creating a token, and those have plenty of artistic license.[/QUOTE]