13 ms·
Richard Prince, the world’s highest-grossing “photographer”
- macmac 11y agoThis is actually one of the few cases I have seen where I think "fair use" is not fair. Most European copyright systems do not know the concept of "fair use" and would have found his work as clearly derived from the originals and therefore infringing.
- Dwyane 11y agoI think its kinda bull...
- jrochkind1 11y agoThe only thing I don't understand is why people pay millions for his work. What a country!
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoBecause art has become a content-free upscale marketing exercise, and Prince is very good at marketing himself. Of course it's worthless as culture, but rich people buy art as an investment and as store of value, and that only works past a certain price/name threshold. If you can persuade art buyers that your "work" will be worth even more a few years from now, you can sell them anything at all. It's not even appropriation art - it's purely a capitalist transaction, very possibly a knowing and cynical one.
- diego_moita 11y ago> content-free upscale marketing exercise Like a market for tulip bulbs[1]? ;-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
- y04nn 11y agoMore closely, as the 2000 Internet bubble. At this time it was possible to make a startup only with an idea, no business plan and no strategic plan needed. Present the idea and you get the money.
- rsp1984 11y agoThis a million times. I could not have stated it more clearly. These kinds of transactions work 100% by "brand" and 0% by content. Prince has established himself as a brand and probably made other people money in the past so whoever buys his artwork believes there is still a lot of upside in it. Buying one of his "works" is not any better or worse than trying to ride a bubble in the stock market.
- bweitzman 11y agoI don't think Prince is even that good at marketing. I think what makes his work appealing as an investment is that a near infinite amount can be generated whenever requested. He's just a money printing machine
- jrochkind1 11y agoI would think it's lack of scarcity would make it UNATTRACTIVE as an investment. How much is your investment worth if he decides to print a bazillion more tomorrow?
- jensen123 11y agoMaybe he has become some sort of brand name status symbol? I have the impression that most people are more interested in status symbols than art itself.
- cerebrum 11y agoHis work is still more interesting then what sells as modern art.
- wavefunction 11y agoBut... his work sells as modern art?!? Infinite logic recursion detected, abort!!!
- rquantz 11y agoNot sure what you mean by this? You're comparing him favorably to the modernists? Picasso, Braque, Miro, those guys? Or do you mean specifically abstract expressionists, who seem to get so much flak in this community? Pollock and Rothko are actually pretty miraculous if you see their paintings in person. So yeah... This didn't make much sense.
- jawns 11y agoA couple of days ago, I noted my surprise that a person could be sued for copyright infringement by quoting even a single line of a song: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934 How the heck can Richard Prince's use of other people's works be considered fair use if quoting a single line from a song is not considered fair use?
- mbrutsch 11y agoBecause of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos, or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages"). If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hrnnnnnn 11y agoA photograph of a photograph is a derivative work, and has to be ruled as fair use to be legal, you don't automatically own the copyright. https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16 https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16
- npongratz 11y ago> Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument? This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago>> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine: Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.” A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
- cconcepts 11y ago"When you go to an Art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires..." - quote stolen from Banksy
- at-fates-hands 11y agoWhile his art isn't in galleries, Banksy can certainly count himself among the wealthiest of artists, despite his anti-capitalistic nature, he's still raking in millions from his works.
- infimum 11y agothe way i understand the quote it's not about the artist being rich but about the owners of the art who are.
- _petronius 11y agoAs someone who works in the art industry, I can say that this is really not the case for the majority of artists, gallerists, and collectors. A lot of people working in this industry, especially outside the major centers of wealth (New York, London, LA, etc.) are really just making fairly unremarkable middle-class incomes, and do it because they like art and genuinely believe in its cultural importance. That might not be the case if you're looking at the Saatchi collection or wandering about in one of Larry Gagosian's spaces, but they are the wild exception to the rule.
- mbrock 11y agoI think his "work" is interesting. It asks questions just like Warhol's did. And he makes money by "adding value" which by prevailing definition boosts the economy—interesting! Instagram itself does something comparable: > By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services. Both Prince and Instagram are protected by U.S. law. Ads are part of public spaces. Appropriating them into artworks is a pretty interesting thing to do, though of course the ad photographer union (so to speak) will oppose it.
- KaiserPro 11y agoInstagram is covered. They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on their behalf. However, if you're not instagram and "new portraits" are not, then they do not have a license. More importantly I don't think instgram has right to sub license your content. So unless it is instagram selling these "art works" he's breaking the law. But, he's got more money than most of you, so good luck proving that.
- mbrock 11y agoBut the court explicitly judged that he is not breaking the law. He doesn't need a contractual agreement—his work is "fair use." You can argue that he's ethically wrong, but why do you say he's breaking the law?
- comrh 11y agoThe article says it was ruled he wasn't breaking the law when it came to the modified “Yes Rasta” picture. Unless I missed it I don't think his Instagram "art" has been challenged in court.
- 11y ago
- mjgoins 11y agoThe scare quotes are not in the article title.
- slfnflctd 11y agoThey are, however, in the article itself. There are so many easy ways I could make gobs of money if I threw ethics out the window, and so few if I won't. In my view this guy is a total assclown, and the "scare quotes" (I see them more as mocking than scary here, but whatever) are well deserved.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoPersonal opinion as a lifelong artist, so take it with a grain of salt: What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy rip-off gutter dweller. He's essentially a fore-father for the mentality perpetrated by "The Fat Jew" on Twitter, who is, rightfully, being excoriated for making a business model of profit by way of theft. If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to achieve something useful in the space race, they'd find a way to grab both those guys, shove them in a rocket on a one way trip to the moon, broadcasting a camera feed back to Earth, and with just enough water to make it there before they have to turn to cannabalism as a last resort before their inevitable, well-deserved end. By Richard Prince's logic, I should totally be entitled to steal his identity and empty his bank account in the name of performance art. He doesn't believe in copyright? Fine. I don't believe in the illegality of stealing from thieves.
- chasing 11y agoArt is like comedy... In comedy, you can get away with a lot. As long as you're funny. In art, you can get away with a lot. As long as the art is good. (I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally/ethically/aesthetically/culturally.) (Banksy's a good example. I'd really rather not have to see shitty graffiti all over the neighborhood. But when a Banksy piece turns up, I'm okay with it. Because I think his art is interesting and relevant.) Prince's "New Portraits" series is shitty art. It's somewhere between tone deaf and behind-the-times. It's obvious. He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. He's not saying anything interesting about copyright. Etc.
- netrus 11y agoAs everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him. First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at. Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it. It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.
- panzagl 11y agoAs everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him. First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at. Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it. It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.
- bittercynic 11y agoSomehow it seems way more valuable the way you say it.
- chrismcb 11y agoCopyright dues nurture creation. But that doesn't mean someone can take my creation and build on it. Just because someone is willing to pay money to him doesn't mean that he had created anything of value. And who are you to set the price on someone else's stuff?
- Yhippa 11y agoSomeone should just photograph his work, repackage it, and sell it. He would be totally okay with that. Use something like Office Lens on your smartphone to do your image transformation and print them on canvas.
- adrianb 11y agoFrom the article: So far, none of the women Prince stole images from have sued him -- but one of them, a user by the name of “Missy Suicide”, has done something even better: she’s begun selling (wait for it) photos of Prince’s photo of her original photo. While Prince’s version sold for $90,000, she offers hers for a mere $90; all proceeds have been donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that fights to preserve digital content rights.
- knughit 11y agoShe is doing a cute stunt, but she isn't passing anything over Prince, Prince doesn't sell pictures, he sells his name to art-market speculators.
- tigeba 11y agoStill trying to determine if the Steve Jobs quote was intentional irony.
- magic_beans 11y agoSame! I can't tell if the writer is a master of irony or really that dense. I'm going with the former.
- esharte 11y agoI get that a photograph can qualify as having it's own copyright. But what he's done here is take a screenshot on iOS. Surely screenshots don't qualify as photographs.
- wavefunction 11y agoGenerally reuse of copyrighted materials need to be transformative in some way, and to many people following this artist he is not doing that. Also, I don't like him or his concept of art. Maybe if he was donating most of the proceeds to charity with enough to make a living.
- pmoriarty 11y ago"ownership", like money, is a fiction that relies on consensus for its power. The ease of reproduction, which photography heralded more than a hundred years ago, only helps reveal this fiction to those still held in its thrall. The cognitive dissonance between a nascent realization of lack of ownership and the belief in the fiction of ownership causes outrage, particularly in those who benefit from the fiction.
- _petronius 11y agoWalter Benjamin would agree with you; but in an age when economic security still means personal security, and creativity is one way of achieving economic security, stealing other people's creativity is pretty low, and isn't a cultural habit we should encourage.
- pmoriarty 11y agoWhether theft of something no one owns is possible at all is the question. As for achieving economic security off of making art, that is a reality only for a very lucky and very tiny minority of artists. The overwhelming majority of those who benefit from art are the middle men. We should carefully consider as a society whether we want to enable the middle men and a handful of lucky artists at the expense of almost all artists and the rest of society, who could well benefit from free and unfettered access to earlier cultural products.
- shams93 11y agoSince art went conceptual the creativity is in the sales pitch rather than the piece but this is also a case of someone who established themseleves long before the internet its maddening to see these baby boomers get to live like this we got these music and art industries closed off because these boomers hate competition lol who wouldnt want to make money so easily lol.
- abakker 11y agoI'm pretty surprised that his work stands up as not infringement after Shepard Fairey and the AP. It seems that his work was much more transformative than what Prince is doing here, and yet he lost. I can't help but feel that the real argument Prince has here is the money to pay better lawyers than the people he "borrows" his work from. I think the result would be different if he was snagging AP photos. Also, I'm not sure whether this applies specifically to Prince, but this clause in the instagram policy would seem to suggest that Prince is at least violating Instagram's policy: The Service contains content owned or licensed by Instagram ("Instagram Content"). Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service. You will not remove, alter or conceal any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Instagram Content and you will not reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works based on, perform, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, sell, license or otherwise exploit the Instagram Content.
- FireBeyond 11y agoRight. I have absolutely no doubt that there's precisely zero coincidence that he doesn't do this to AP/Reuters/Getty images. He may not "believe" in copyright (though it would be awesome if someone took a photo of his "work" and what his reaction would be), but he sure as hell knows that it wouldn't survive through court. He just doesn't care, though. "Even if they didn't give me permission, I'd do it anyway." Such a rebel.
- Terr_ 11y ago> I have absolutely no doubt that there's precisely zero coincidence that he doesn't do this to AP/Reuters/Getty images. If only some random user took one of those images, and then he re-stole it without noticing until too late...
- usefulcat 11y agoIt's probably reasonable for him to calculate that Instagram is unlikely to take action against him because his success means free advertising for them. Also, I'm not sure how you can claim that "his work stands up as not infringement"; to my knowledge, he hasn't been sued over this so these pieces haven't been put to any legal test.
- debrisapron 11y agoOf course Joe & Jane Average's outraged howls of "it's not art!" are the precise reason why Prince is so rich & awesome. What you think is a critique is in fact the entire value proposition.
- michael_h 11y agoI think very few people are exclaiming that "it's not art!". They're exclaiming "he didn't create this".
- rquantz 11y agoI think this video is relevant: http://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg http://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg There is a common idea when faced with abstract or conceptual art that "I could do that," or "my kid could do that." Usually though, you couldn't. I don't find the arguments in the article very convincing – to my eye he appears to be producing original works of art.
- mikehearn 11y agoImportant to note that his Instagram ripoffs haven't been tested in court. He has prevailed in previous court cases with art pieces that had a stronger "transformative" argument, which is a key aspect of fair use. This time the infringement seems more clear-cut. He's not transforming anything, but merely adding his own caption to an existing work. The original work is unaltered. I was talking about this with a friend, and she said if that was sufficiently transformative for fair use to apply, then one could simply write notes in the margin of a book, call it art, and claim ownership of the book's contents.
- mbrock 11y agoIndeed. But the ruling also claims transformation isn't necessary for fair use and mentions other aspects. I also found it interesting to read the cited judge who talked about the purpose of copyright and how it is not a God-given right but a kludge to encourage creativity, like patents.
- scotty79 11y agoI'd like to see more people doing that. Maybe then it would become obvious that monetary value of a creation has nothing to do with the creation but rather with who sells it to whom. Maybe when creators see that, they will stop living their dream that at some point their things will magically sell and focus either on selling if they are in it for the money or on creating if they are in it for creating. And copyright will gradually become obsolete. I think it would improve both selling and creating.
- mr_luca 11y agoI would be interested to hear from an art historian or dealer why his work is considered so important. The article lists other artists like Warhol who appropriated found photos into their works. So if he wasn't the first, what did he do so differently that makes his work so valuable?
- greydius 11y agoI think this is brilliant. Richard Prince is exactly the artist that the people paying for his works deserve.
- blucoat 11y agoIt seems like everyone here has this mentality that "of course he's evil, he's a thief!" Can someone explain what actual harm this causes anyone? I think it's ridiculous that people pay so much for his "work", but that's their choice. It's not like people are going to him as an alternative to the original source; if he didn't copy it, nobody would give a damn about the original. EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as aggressive, but somebody's downvoted me without answering my question. I seriously want to know why his actions are so terrible. What harm does this cause to anyone?
- S_A_P 11y agoAt the end of the day, Richard has to live with himself and realize what he has done...
- m-i-l 11y agoI know someone with a really similar name. He should take photos of the Richard Prince ones in a gallery, add a caption or something to claim fair use, and sell them as his-similar-name originals. Sounds like the key to plausibility would be to sell e.g. 10 at $100K rather than 100K at $10, plus it would be a lot less effort.