|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| *Richard Prince
| |
|
| |
|
| Work: New Portraits (Gagosian Gallery) - he did not alter the usernames, he removed captions. He added odd comments and a short message he posted at the last comment on each one. (then take it, no comments are or can be added, he basically finishes the work then). (3&4&5)
| |
|
| |
| *Copyright
| |
|
| |
| *Specialist attorney copright law - John Arsenault (2)
| |
|
| |
| *The fact is, copyright law is more flexible and ever-evolving more than most people realize.
| |
|
| |
| *Fair Use
| |
|
| |
| *Copyright vs. Fair Use
| |
|
| |
| *Forbidden: download image from person A, print it out and sell it.
| |
|
| |
| *Blurry and sketchy when the Fair Use label is attached especially when internet is involved.
| |
|
| |
| *Case between Cariou and Prince. Prince won. (1)
| |
| Artwork does not need to comment on previous work to qualify fair use. Rather the issue is how the work may reasonably be perceived (purpose, value of gain by creating).
| |
|
| |
| *Blanch vs. Koons (1)
| |
|
| |
| *Fair Use: require comment or criticism on the original (yes/no). In same cases yes, others not.
| |
|
| |
| *Adding social value, taking an online work and printing more than just the photo—> also the comments. This is in itself not a direct copy of the work. (2)
| |
|
| |
| *Fair Use is invented to block the useless sue-ing society. (Disney poster in background example while subject is clearly something else). (2)
| |
|
| |
| *Found images, intentionally, including existing commentary, Instagram digital interface, and his own commentary. Trying to make a statement. (2)
| |
|
| |
| *Walking close to the line in order to stir up a public response (as at technically should do).
| |
|
| |
| *Copyright is malleable (kneedbaar). (2)
| |
|
| |
| *Solution: register your work in advance (federal copyrights). (2)
| |
|
| |
| *Does social media own the copyrights? No, you allow a 3rd party to use it for their purposes (advertising). They don’t have the intention t sell. That will also cause a tornado of bad comments. (2)
| |
|
| |
| * my view of an artist using other people's Instagram pics is no different than an artist using any other material. By now, we have to agree that images — even digital ones — are materials, and artists use materials to do what they do. Period. (Jerry Saltz) (6)
| |
|
| |
| *by adding his comments, he not only leaves tracks of evidence, he reincorporates language into his work. (6)
| |
|
| |
| *Prince's new portraits number among the new art burning through the last layers that separate the digital and physical realms. (6)
| |
|
| |
| *SuicideGirls (Selena Mooney) pointed out how Prince’s exorbitant prices put the works out of reach for anyone but the very wealthy. “My first thought was, I don’t know anyone who can spend $90,000 on anything other than a house. Maybe I know a few people who can spend it on a car. As to the copyright issue? If I had a nickel for every time someone used our images without our permission in a commercial endeavour I’d be able to spend $90,000 on art.”
| |
| “Do we have Mr. Prince’s permission to sell these prints?” she added. “We have the same permission from him that he had from us. (7)
| |
|
| |
| Links:
| |
|
| |
| #-http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit/
| |
| #-https://fstoppers.com/business/latest-richard-prince-controversy-clarified-patent-and-copyright-attorney-john-71927
| |
| #-http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/
| |
| #-http://gothamist.com/2015/05/21/artist_steals_instagram_photos_sell.php
| |
| #-https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358
| |
| #-http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/richard-prince-instagram-pervert-troll-genius.html
| |
| #-http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/05/suicidegirls-deliver-cleverest-response-to-richard-princes-instagram-appropriation.html
| |
