US Appeals Court Rule in Favor of Richard Prince; Says His Work Did Not Infringe

[Jamie123]

Interestingly, when you're a starving artist appropriating things, you can be viewed as a guerrilla and earn admiration for what you're doing. It's witty ... it's innovative ... it's parody ... etc.

I always saw it a bit differently. When he was appropriating advertising imagery he was essentially taking something from the world that surrounds us all so it could be argued that re-photographing a Marlboro ad is not unlike photographing the tree on the corner of the street. It's something that's just part of our world.

 

[Jamie123]

Honestly I have rather ignored much of his work, although I have some books of his work. But have just now begun working with photographs of Plasticville structures, so it gives me some peace of mind.

Same here. The problem I have with most of his work is that once you get past the appropriation it's just very shallow.

 

[jsrockit]

Interestingly, when you're a starving artist appropriating things, you can be viewed as a guerrilla and earn admiration for what you're doing. It's witty ... it's innovative ... it's parody ... etc. THEN, when you start collectging megabucks for appropriating, the sympathy goes out the window. Poor Prince can afford to somehow compensate folks if he wishes.

Good point Rob, money always complicates matters.

 

[j j]

RichC

Did you realise your pics of Mrs T were on your 666th post?

Ha Ha!

 

[L Collins]

American copyright law tries to protect products of creativity so that people have economic incentive to keep on creating. But the law has also evolved ways to allow for creative uses of copying: the fair use exemption, which allows some copying for things like criticism, comment or news reporting.

The legal standard is how much the thing copied has been transformed. In other words, copying should be allowed only to the degree to which it adds to or builds on what came before.

What is "transformative" is subjective of course, especially in the visual realm.

You may as well get used to it now that digital images are so easily produced, diseminated and offered up without much copyright protection on social media sites.

 

[zauhar]

Like anything else in this world, it doesn't matter until someone sees dollars to be made. Then things get tricky.

So, with regard to the Miles Davis photo... in which the 8-bit artist supposedly made no cash from, do you think there was more to it than a cash grab as many have alluded to in the comments? Perhaps he didn't like Kind of Bloop and didn't want his image associated with it? I wouldn't want one of my photos being used by someone whose philosophies didn't mix with mine and especially for free.

I had not seen this site. The author has an interesting take on intellectual property:

"This is my first time licensing music, and I'm frustrated that there's no free, legal way to release this album for free download when it's done. By law, you're legally required to pay royalties for every download, whether or not you charge for it. Wouldn't a percentage of revenue make more sense?"

Yes, let everyone decide what they want to pay the artist. He should be honored that they even care about him, right? (In this case, as filtered through the imagination of someone else. )

It is only creative people who are on the receiving end of this attitude in our society.

Randy

 

[Exdsc]

and all the kiddies want to be famous in the web-blog-youtube world, leveraging someone else’s creativity is the norm.

The irony is that those same kiddies in a decade or so turn into bitter and resentful adults who blame their own failure on the ambition of others.

 

[jtullar]

This video explains the thought process of Andy Baio and his kind of bloop inspiration. Personally I see no malice here and do think that it constitutes fair use. But what do I know... im not a judge lol.
http://vimeo.com/62839607#at=0

 

[zauhar]

This video explains the thought process of Andy Baio and his kind of bloop inspiration. Personally I see no malice here and do think that it constitutes fair use. But what do I know... im not a judge lol.
http://vimeo.com/62839607#at=0

I also don't think this is malicious, but I don't see the distinction between re-imagining a jazz performance on another medium (I think that is what he's up to) and covering a song, in which case YES you owe a royalty, even if the performance is free! I know that my kid's drama society has to pay a royalty for performing a play if it's under active copyright, no matter what they charge at the door.

I guess this part of the 'demographics' of this thread, mentioned above. I suspect the Miles Davis 'appropriation' is from someone of a later generation than mine, who just doesn't see the problem with transforming someone else's work, thus making something 'new'. (I might be wrong of course, there are plenty of old people who think imitation is the highest form of flattery.)

Frankly, it is no different than the 'Canal Zone' work, if Prince can get away with it there is no reason this musician can't also.

Randy

P.S. What was the attitude of Prince toward the photos he appropriated? Did he treasure the images and intend them to add meaning to his final product, or did he see them as raw material to be processed by his superior aesthetic? I bet the latter...

 

[Exdsc]

Bruce Davidson's Brooklyn Gang book, just like many other books by Magnum members are available on magnum website without any watermark and with option to right click and save. Not to mention in a very decent resolution for computer monitors.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53ZTH6


In a time when magnum members are basically offering their books in digital format for free download, it should send a clear message to everyone in photography business.

 

[zsas]

^There is a big difference between counterfeit goods and artistic appropriation. If you want to throw the whole kitchen sink into this debate go ahead and start a new thread but the Cariou v Prince case has nothing to do with the above ebay seller who is selling counterfeit art. Keep this on point. We can discuss counterfeit handbags, software, art, etc. elsewhere. I hardly believe that if one understands why Prince's appeal was upheld, doesnt presume one condones said action, nor the ebay seller above. If you want to create a culture where we have nice artistic debates here on RFF, make it cogent and on point otherwise it will not get the depth I know you want here.

Personally, I understand why the judge upheld the case, not that I agree with it or would have created a Piece like Prince's. I've seen appropriation for ages in art, Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc....what's different here?

 

[zsas]

No prob PKR....now back to the show. This case, as painful as it is, is quite interesting to me. First of all, this whole appropriation art is nothing new (e.g., Warhol/Lichtenstein) , but in recent times, street art is bringing transformation into a whole new light, coupled with tech advancements (i.e. google image search + free-ware-photoshop-like-apps), folks are able to make pieces that appropriate in no time. This case with Prince is interesting to examine. Judges seem to be split 50/50 on this case, which means that Prince is on the border of theft/fair use. As slam-dunk-wrong as this case seems to all of us photographers, the biggest slam dunk is the one of Glen Friedman v Mr. Brainwash....this one, is a clear example of no transformation:


http://boingboing.net/2011/06/10/mr-brainwash-loses-c.html


This case will be interesting to follow. Five pieces of Prince's work were handed back to the lower court to determine if they meet fair use. It sure would be interesting if they didn't meet fair use, then the art was given to Cariou who then sold them....would be an interesting ending to this long case. But...if that happened I am sure Prince would sue back Cariou for proceeds from their "collaboration"??!

 

[Archiver]

On a vaguely related note:

Many years ago, when I was at school, I wandered into the Art department and saw a large canvas on an easel. I recognized it immediately as based on the cover of scifi novel published in the late 70's or early 80's, and I said, "Oh, that's Xxxxxx". The student turned and looked at me in horror, and the teacher said, 'what do you mean?' I said that it was from the cover of a novel, and the teacher said that this was very serious, as this was a final year portfolio piece, and all artwork had to be original.

I was asked to bring the novel to school the next day, and I talked to the student who was making a copy of that work. He was horrified at having been found out, and even offered me money to not show his teacher. I said that this wasn't necessary, and said that he just needed to make sure that he did well, and didn't copy anything else again. Later, I told the teacher that I had been mistaken.

Regarding the original post: it's very interesting to note how Baio is neither poor nor a starving artist, and that Jay Meisel's 'mansion' is in fact an old bank building bought at an extremely low price. Copyright issues are tricky in these cases, but I do understand Meisel's ire at having had one of his iconic images taken without any kind of notice or contact.

 

[Chris101]

I've not been exposed to Prince's work before reading this thread. Back around 1980, I saw an artist named Robert Heinecken at the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson. His work was very visceral, and largely appropriated, and Princes work is very reminiscent of Heinecken's. I'm not sure if I like it yet - I didn't initially like Heinecken. Time will tell. It doesn't matter to me if he makes a lot of money with it or not.

 

[littlefields]

Without appropriation, there would have been no Dada, Surrealist, or Pop Art. I've not heard of Schwitters or Heartfield having a problem with copyright in their day, but I know Warhol and (I think) Rauschenberg did. There's an old saying that goes, "Immature artists imitate, mature artists steal."