The Richest Photographer In the World

Reminds me of what Kostabi was doing in the 80's and 90's when he was hiring art students to do his paintings and then signing them......which of course Warhol did too
 
stnolan said:
Reminds me of what Kostabi was doing in the 80's and 90's when he was hiring art students to do his paintings and then signing them......which of course Warhol did too
Click to expand...

Not just warhole, paul rubens too, hirst comes to mind too.

The funny thing is if you were to do something like this for your graduation show, you would most likely get a fail.

But if monsieur prince does it it's high art, go figure.
 
He is a horrible person. The rich that buy his stolen stuff are no better. They are also incredibly dumb to think they are buying anything that is original or worthy of being called "art". All, of course, IMHO.
 
This concept that art is "all about the artist and zip about what art he makes" makes me literally sick. Try to put a copyright on somebody else's WC or photograph, and then the judges will hang you dry... Here, it is useless to be upset with Mr. Prince, who is somehow "reading the minds" and particularly the wallets of the art collectors. The real sobering observation is how big a scam is the whole circus revolving around "modern art".
 
mfogiel said:
art is "all about the artist and zip about what art he makes"
Click to expand...

Yep

mfogiel said:
Try to put a copyright on somebody else's WC or photograph, and then the judges will hang you dry...
Click to expand...

Prince's shtick is for the work to be "transformative" so as to get around copyright laws and qualify as "Fair Use." The article mentions the photographer Cariou and his court case. From what I understand the case was settled outside of court because at least some of the images were deemed non-transformative and therefore in violation of copyright, and Cariou was paid an undisclosed amount in damages. I teach a section on copyright law in a college course and I always tell my students that Fair Use can only really be proven in court.

I don't care for the work either but Fair Use is a legitimate defense and it's up to the courts to decide what's what. Unfortunately our court system is stacked against those of us who cannot afford serious legal support, but I do think if all of those people whose Instagram photos were sold banded together and found a lawyer willing to try the case in return for a percentage of the payout, they'd likely get a settlement.
 
photomoof said:
So tell me do you make your own images, or do you let Nikon, Canon, or Leica make them for you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I make all my own images. If I tell the camera to go out by itself and create a stunning sunset with a tree and reeds framing a humming bird, nothing would happen. Because I would be talking to an inert object that is useless without the direct input, skill, vision and manipulation of the user.

The camera is a tool, no matter how 'good' it is technically it is only as good as the user involved.

:)
 
Should photograph his stuff and give it away for free. I bet his attitude toward copyright would change. As for the celebrities buying his crap, I say screw them when they bitch about people pirating their music, movies, etc. If they can't support other artists copyright, why should we support theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom