> When someone creates fine art, they are not creating art for the sake of its economic value.
They often are, though.
"Fine art" only means that it's art without practical utility beyond being art. A painting is fine art, for instance, where an ornate silver teapot is not, as it has practical utility.
Whether or not either type was made for economic reasons doesn't enter into it.
You are correct to say that the distinction between fine and commercial art is beyond an artwork's practical utility, but I think we could both agree that the market price of art does not necessarily equate to its overall social value. That is what I was getting at. It's more about economic markets not capturing social value, and copyright's role in protecting economic value to the detriment of social value.
Outside the scope of my comment is whether copyright is even capable of protecting social value (I tend to think it isn't), but if it is, W3C should be the organization that steps up to make the attempt.
They often are, though.
"Fine art" only means that it's art without practical utility beyond being art. A painting is fine art, for instance, where an ornate silver teapot is not, as it has practical utility.
Whether or not either type was made for economic reasons doesn't enter into it.