One reason that Gordon v. Drape Creative is so concerning is that it reads “explicit” to be something other than explicit–maybe a version of falsity by necessary implication, but one that wants to pose transformativeness as the thing that avoids explicit falsity. So what do we do with art objects like this one? Is the traditional porcelain decoration sufficient for there to be something more than the McDonald’s M present? The V&A certainly thinks so … but who should decide?
from Blogger https://ift.tt/306nfwa