MichaelChang Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use">The story of Richard Prince and his $100,000 Instagram art</a> has stirred quite a bit of controversy and has angered many owners of the Instagram photos he appropriated including <a href="http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2015/06/01/richard-princes-use-of-her-instagram-image-angers-toronto-woman.html">this Toronto woman</a>. </p> <p>Notwithstanding what the law says, do you think this is fair use or outright theft? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>Probably in between 'fair use' and theft, there is a big, murky grey area from 'rather unfair use' to 'seriously, you shouldn't be doing this'. For me, it hovers somewhere in that range, mostly.<br> His added value as an artist in this case seems to be to see a link across these images, and bring them together in a different context, different presentation. The "type of use" is quite different and I assume the whole artistic statement is about that mostly. The artistic merit of setting this up.... well. Let's say there is a dash of creativity in it, and/or good business sense. He creates something out of these Instagram photos that they weren't before, via the context they're in. I can't say I am blown away by it. It doesn't have the class of an hommage, or a nice cynical critique, or a total transformation that makes one stop and think. It seems mostly shallow, as shallow as Instagram mostly is; not a big achievement.</p> <p>Given the extremely limited transformation and changes, he ought to be paying the authors of the photos used, and from the article I get the impression that is not the case. Theft might be a big word, but it feels like it. At the least, it's bad sportsmanship.<br> I'm not impressed with the whole thing; it seems overvalued and more spurred by name than by substance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>There is legal protection for "parody" and this sort of use might fit that. However, I agree with Wouter that the change should be significant enough to avoid confusion that the work is possibly the original -- that is really the test. If you can see that it is clearly derivative, the alteration is probably OK and protected, but it the change is subtle and potentially confusing, then the original author's rights should be protected.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 This is not a parody, nor a citation or such. It is an appropriation.<br>The difficulty with 'appropriation art' is that it is all too easy to be a lazy so-and-so, steal, and propose that the act of appropriation itself elevates whatever is 'appropriated' to some higher level (as something appropriated - not by or in itself), and thus itself is something special too.<br>If you are inclined to go along with that sort of pretense, make belief, you may disagree, say that it is not too easy, but a genuine and valid 'recreation' with artistic vallue or something like that. And that's fine, as long as you know that it (the work and that opinion) is pretense.<br>In this instance - despite the fan base and silly amounts of money - a lazy so-and-so it is. "Theft" is not a word that is too big. "Art" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>Interesting is that initial court decisions side with the plaintiff against Prince but the appeals court decisions overturn the decisions on legal issues, meaning the initial judges saw the appropriation of the works but the law doesn't define it sufficiently to sustain the decision. The problem isn't that it's appropriation, it is, but the law isn't, as noted, clear enough to establish appropriation for commercial art purposes, which to me is what Prince is doing, make money for commercial value.</p> <p>If Prince stole someone landscape, nature, street photography, etc. photograph, it would appropriation, so why are photos of people on social networking Websites legal? As for the context issue across mulitipe images, why is that when all the photos were sold individually, thereby losing the context of the display. It may be art in context as a whole but it's not when he's selling all the images individually for profit. What he is doing is what anyone could equally do, download, print and sell Instagram images under the guise of art.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>IMO, it's neither art nor theft. It's non-creative appropriation of others' work in a pop-cutural cry for attention on social media . . . not unusual these days. The fame will last about 15 minutes, more than deserved.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <blockquote> <p>The fame will last about 15 minutes, more than deserved.</p> </blockquote> <p>True. But most people could buy a very nice house with the proceeds of selling a handful of those $100,000 pieces, and that change in their financial landscape would last a lifetime. Just because the entire process is vulgar and won't stay on the cultural radar for long doesn't mean it's trivial. This guy really gets under my skin ... but probably not as much as the enabling fools/tools who actually write him a check. Stop it, you twits!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>I doubt any of these photographers he 'appropriated' have ever sold a print for 5% of what Prince got for them. Good on him. Now these photographers can coast on his coattails and get some nice sales. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryp Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p><a href="http://dlreporter.com/2015/01/30/jeff-koons-plagiarism/">Jeff Koons and the Never-Ending Story of Appropriation and Plagiarism </a></p> <blockquote> <p>I doubt any of these photographers he 'appropriated' have ever sold a print for 5% of what Prince got for them.</p> </blockquote> <p>That has NOTHING to due with either the legal or the ethical issue. Legally, he may be permitted to do what he's done but ethically, like Jeff Koons, he has no integrity at all IMO. YMMV<br> - henry</p> Henry Posner B&H Photo-Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 <blockquote> <p><em>"Now these photographers can coast on his coattails and get some nice sales."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I think most of us will agree with this sentence from the article: <br> <em>"To be clear: not just anyone can get away with this. People are spending thousands of dollars on these images because they're paying for Prince's name, not because they sincerely want an enlarged Instagram photo."</em></p> <p>It makes any owner's effort to capitalize on the event remote in its odds of success. </p> <p>There's also the central (non legal) question: Who is actually riding on the coattails of others? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Appropriation photography/art has been around since the 1970's perhaps longer. It's not new. I've been aware of Richard Prince and others such as Sherrie Levine since being interested in photography. It's hardly a case of 15 minutes of fame (Prince's long career is an example). It's Rauschenberg, Duchamp and Johns taken to a higher level. It's a matter of degree. I doubt many would take issue with, say, Yasumasa Morimura or Cindy Sherman. Warhol's soup cans? My view is some of it is due to the creation of art markets, market-building, and the gallery system. It's interesting and in the end all good, especially from my perspective as a viewer. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Keefer Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>And if she were to copyright her photo now after the fact, what then, any recourse? </p> Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>I'll just plagiarize myself from a February 2015 comment on <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/richard-prince-instagram-pervert-troll-genius.html"><strong>this Vulture article</strong></a> that asserted Richard Prince is a trolling perverted genius, or a pervert with a genius for trolling, or a troll with a genius for perversion or some other hyperbolic clickbait title.</p> <p>After re-reading my comments, I haven't changed my mind. Prince isn't a thief, and this particular Instagram project isn't genius or genius trolling. He's trying too hard to appear hip to trolling social networking, and it shows. Leave the internet trolling to the kids, they're better at it. Besides, there are plenty of other opportunities for artistic trolling and culture jamming that would actually make a tiny bit of a damn, especially in government and politics.</p> <blockquote> <p>"Can't say I disagree with a single thing Jerry Saltz writes here, good and bad. Richard Prince can't easily be dismissed as merely a thief. Appropriated art and culture jamming defy such shallow epithets. Past his prime, sure. I'm not sure Prince still has a good enough grasp of current pop culture to be relevant. For the past decade the sharpest culture jamming and riffs on pop culture have emerged from the denizens of Anonymous - no, not the so-called hacktivists, but the artistic anarchists who use outlets like 4chan, reddit and other sites to indulge in a passion for alternately - and sometimes simultaneously - mocking and glorifying pop culture.<br> And Anonymous does it from the purest form of amateurism. They do it for the love. They do it for the lulz. If nothing else Prince is a hack for accepting money for inferior work that is never as clever as the typical /b/tard's trolling and riffing on pop culture."</p> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 <p>There's a lawyer's argument presented <a href="https://fstoppers.com/business/latest-richard-prince-controversy-clarified-patent-and-copyright-attorney-john-71927">here</a> that it's probably legal. </p> <blockquote> <p>And if she were to copyright her photo now</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Photos are copyrighted when they are taken. It's worth noting that copyright doesn't exist to protect Instagram users and small-time photographers, it's there to protect Disney and other big content producers. I had an image used without permission by Sony and Dreamworks and a lawyer told me it would cost too much to fight their legal team. There you go. <br> <br> And, in the end, as Brad said, it's a shift in the art world that is not new. I suspect that if weren't for the ridiculous sums of money that Prince's work command, nobody would notice or care.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 <blockquote> <p>"...copyright doesn't exist to protect Instagram users and small-time photographers, it's there to protect Disney and other big content producers."</p> </blockquote> <p>Yup. Another notable example occurred when the movie version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_in_the_Garden_of_Good_and_Evil_(film)"><em>Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil</em></a> appropriated the image concept by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Leigh">Jack Leigh</a> in his photo illustration created for the cover of the published book version. The photo of the "Bird Girl" statue (named Little Wendy by the family) had no direct connection to the story. It was simply an elegant way to illustrate the mood and feel of Savannah's southern gothic milieu. Since the movie, trailer and advertising featured the Bird Girl statue motif as well, it was clearly influenced by Leigh's book cover photograph, not by any independent source or reference from the novel or script based on the novel. There were many other similarly eerie statues in the lushly beautiful southern gothic splendor of Bonaventure Cemetery. And the movie's cast was rich with colorful characters who could have served as models for a collage poster or ad. But the movie director (Clint Eastwood) and Warner Brothers chose the Bird Girl statue. </p> <p>But the movie industry effectively took the same approach as Richard Prince: stamp a name and a comment on someone else's work, call it artistic license, fair use, derivative work, parody, or whatever else their legal genies can summon out of smoke, and, presto. Your work is magically transformed into their money.</p> <p>And skeptics say the Philosopher's Stone isn't real. Hah. It only needed to wait for the alchemical blend of capitalism, legalism and the inherent corruption of power, money and influence to make the Philosopher's Stone real.</p> <p>Eventually Leigh's suit was settled privately, with details of the settlement withheld. As a result this did not create any legal precedent for subsequent similar cases.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 <blockquote> <p>do you think this is fair use or outright theft?</p> </blockquote> <p>Neither. It's not fair and it isn't theft.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 <i>"It's worth noting that copyright doesn't exist to protect Instagram users and small-time photographers, it's there to protect Disney and other big content producers. I had an image used without permission by Sony and Dreamworks and a lawyer told me it would cost too much to fight their legal team. There you go."</i><br><br>It's worth noting that that's the way it is used. In some countries in particular. But not everywhere. And it's not why it exists.<br>That enough money will buy the right to break any law is not particular to copyright (or any other intellectual property) issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 <blockquote> <p>It's worth noting that that's the way it is used. In some countries in particular. But not everywhere.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> In the US. Which happens to be where Richard Prince and his exhibition are located. That should be obvious.</p> <p><a href="http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/">Here's a good article</a> on Disney and copyright. Some people may find it interesting and relevant. Others can ignore it if they like.</p> <p> </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It is indeed irrelevant. There is no moral nor legal objection to extending the protection offered by copyright legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 <p>TPP intellectual property provisions? <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/455848/disney_calls_extended_copyright_international_trade_agreement/">http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/455848/disney_calls_extended_copyright_international_trade_agreement/</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Berne Convention: <i>Article 7, (1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death."</i> and <i>"(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work."</i> and <i>"(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs."</i><br>In excess, at least, and not at most.<br><br>The TPP is a political thing about which a lot can be, has been and will be said. That Disney's motives are financial is clear. Neither of which have anything to do with copyright per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>In retaliation, Missy began selling portraits from the Suicide Girls Instagram account for only $90 in the same size and using the same materials (inkjet on canvas) that Prince used. </p> </blockquote> <p>Has she learned nothing? She could sell enlargements of Prince's enlargements of her photos, for $200,000.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shutterbud Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 <p>What Prince is doing is just wrong; clearly, blatantly and simply wrong. While Art is essential to our cultural life, something fundamental has been missing from the so-called Art World for a very long time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 <p>Wow. The more things change, the more they stay the same: both Richard Prince and the discussions we have on PN. I haven't engaged in a good Richard Prince discussion since 2009:<br> <a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00VHOl">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00VHOl</a></p> <p>Good old Luis G. I hope he is well. I'd be interested to hear what he had to say about this latest project by Prince. Regardless of what any of us may think of Prince, he is not the sole representative of the much vilified "Art World". </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 <p>People miss the point that Prince is a performance artist. He's not a photographer and he's not interested in being a photographer. He's doing something that accomplishes its goal extraordinarily well. How he got there may be an issue, but that's different.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now