On what grounds? Very rarely does the law see things that way [1]. Where is the tipping point. What if it did Mondrian _and_ Rothko? Still good? Okay, now add Damien Hirst. Also add Jackson Pollock. Then Roy Lichtenstein. What is your grounds for delineation? If it's just a feeling, then the problem isn't the law, it's you. Monet could just be a Photoshop filter, Pointillism is. Warhol?
We differentiate based on scale all the time. If I steal a pack of gum I expect a very different legal outcome than if I steal the entire contents of a best buy. In violent crime scale matters -- manslaughter is very different from mass murder.
In financial crimes ripping off my friend by not paying back a dinner is very different from embezzling millions from my company. Possessing a dime bag of marijuana is a very different crime from possessing 100 kilos of marijuana.
And in many cases, scale reaches a level of either not being enforced as a crime or not being a crime at all.
On what grounds? Very rarely does the law see things that way [1]. Where is the tipping point. What if it did Mondrian _and_ Rothko? Still good? Okay, now add Damien Hirst. Also add Jackson Pollock. Then Roy Lichtenstein. What is your grounds for delineation? If it's just a feeling, then the problem isn't the law, it's you. Monet could just be a Photoshop filter, Pointillism is. Warhol?
[1] Newton v. Diamond is an example I can think of https://www.quimbee.com/cases/newton-v-diamond