When it comes to modern-day art pieces, many people gawk at the recreation of an original art piece that's been transformed into something a little different. Appropriation of art is the re-use of pre-existing art with very little to no changes made to them. It's been argued that appropriation is the object of copyright infringement, in which the recreations are "stolen" and used so similarly to the original art work, as if the work was plagiarized. Many well-known artists have been the subject of appropriation, such as Bansky, Pablo Picasso, and Andy Warhol. Their pop and post-modern work play on contemporary art, such as the picture shown above in the re-creation of The Last Supper. On the other hand, appropriation has been accepted in the art world for its role on free speech and freedom of expression. Artists simply "borrow" others' ideas to influence their work. They claim that most art is appropriated and is transformed merely as an accolade of preceding art. So when we see new version's of Obama's campaign Change poster, how do we define the line between stealing and borrowing?