RDKirk wrote in post #14491670
If the second artist had violated another artist's copyright, then that second work was not
"a work of art, something copyright protected." It was exactly the opposite, not copyright protected at all because by definition an infringement cannot be copyrighted. The continued existence and trafficking of an infringement is a continuing violation of the original author's copyright which does not end until the infringement is destroyed.
I couldn't find any indication that O'Keefe's videos were ordered destroyed by a court. Perhaps you have a link to that.
The O'Keefe issue is extreme as well, in that the issue was not just that the videos were gained through illegal circumstances, but also that he used them in an illegal manner after gaining them (libel). That's certainly 'way too extreme to state as though it were a generality.
As usual you just HAVE to take the conversation so off topic it does nobody any good.
You're re-writing what judges called the work of art, you're re-writing what the attorney's called it, you're re-writing fair use laws that the second artist claims to of been using. You're talking about if someone copied another persons work as is, this was using it in another piece of art...again they claim fair use, that judge didn't see it that way and ordered it destroyed, now it may be in or go to appeals court. All it shows is a judge can order a "work of art" destroyed, may not stick in this case, but has the power under certain circumstances.
As for O'Keefe..."I contacted O’Keefe last night to ask when we could expect to see this tape. He told me that he wanted the tape back, but that the judge had said in open court that he wanted it destroyed, and instructed federal agents to destroy the evidence before returning the camera to O’Keefe." Not the best quote seen on it, but you're not worth the time to dig up one's seen in the past that are better. There's already a lot of articles out there about how the judge ordered it destroyed and then go on to explain..."A defendant's property can be forfeited under certain circumstances - if he commits a felony" (from the attorney). That's the problem, that moron didn't commit a felony so the tape should not have been destroyed, but they sure answered the question as to how a judge can rule it destroyed in all these articles.
Now, where's that ignore button as seriously can't take that in every post you take something simplified down and just have to try and take it so far to the extreme that it helps nobody and is beyond what anybody needs. Go do something you've never done before, like post an image and prove you've worked a day in this field.