Any definition you choose can be shown to be incomplete. The artist doesn't even have to make the piece, cf. Duchamps' famous 'R. Mutt' urinal. Or it can be made in a substantially identical series: etchings, silk-screens and, yes, photo prints. And as I said earlier, and as has been illustrated by several others, the separation between 'fine' and 'applied' art just didn't exist until comparatively recently.

In particular, most of the great painters of religious scenes and portraitists before 1700 (arguably before 1800) were producing 'applied art', to an agreed theme, often with specified (and highly formalized) content, for a specific purpose, at the behest of a paying patron. The same is true of ikon painters and thangka painters today. What they produce may be great art, that anyone would be proud to have on his wall, but the term 'fine art' is substantially meaningless in that context.

The Romantic Movement of the mid-to-late 18th century was to a large extent responsible for the concept of the Artist, complete with garrets, drugs, etc; the Tortured Genius was a still later invention.

If people buy your work to hang on the wall, you're probably a Fine Artist, or at least, you've produced Fine Art, regardless of what people call you or why you first created it. As for what you call yourself or your work, I hesitate to label anything I have ever done as Fine Art, even when someone has bought a picture to hang on their wall, simply because the term has been so devalued in the 20th century.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, commercial, political, educational and more, but it strikes me as an odd subject to get excited about.