![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfxfTL18VhJcypi4Qs1X_JiZim74SnGOSSl-l6BSktMGdd7-NWnhOFU-EfRq4WcY_KT0YY1j8yvkuV3bAz8vo2EXu5dt4Ffm4qnfHr5ELmHLAB28LWW8BtbBICRBeTu0sDFLfe7pXLVrc/s400/Lamp-at-The-Gates-NYC.jpg)
Read my thoughts after the jump.
Today's image certainly can be called art on it's own. If it were to be published for money it would be nice to give Christos a nod, but I can't imagine splitting the payment with him. His "art" isn't recognizable on it's own. Without the orange frame or the inclusion of other "Gates" the drape becomes just that, a drape. It could have, just as easily, been in the studio. There are bedsheets of the same color and five minutes in Photoshop could have produced the same thing. If something is in the public domain, available for anyone to freely view, it would be difficult to successfully keep a photographer from using it as an element in her/his artistic creation.
Obviously you wouldn't be able to pay money, walk into an art museum, grab a shot of a famous painting and say "hey, look at my art". If you had to pay money to get to the place where the original artwork resides, it ain't your art. In fact, you might find yourself on the arm of someone in a uniform being escorted toward the door. On the other hand, the Minuteman Monument, Fisherman's Memorial, the interior of the Guggenheim Museum have frequently been the subjects of photographic art.
How far you can, would, should go is up to you. There are plenty of people willing to tell you where the imaginary line is that separates your dipping to far into someone else's art pool