4 ms·

I 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 econ

by mbrock 11y ago

I 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 ago
Instagram 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 ago
  But 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 ago
    The 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.
  - chrismcb 11y ago
    One image, that he actually changed was judged as not breaking the law. Other works, including the Instagram detours, were he merely added a quoted have not been challenged. I personally don't think adding a quote is enough to transform the work
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
xbryanx 11y ago
> protected by U.S. law Not entirely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince No definitive decision, and the case was settled.
- pc86 11y ago
  Did you read the article? The original court found in favor of Cariou, Price appealed, and won the appeal. Second Circuit Court found it fair use.
  - jgeada 11y ago
    Because you cannot break the law if you're rich enough to afford perpetual appeals and good lawyers?
    - pc86 11y ago
      I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, but I'm assuming it's not mine since you're not replying to anything that I actually said. > No definitive decision, and the case was settled. Both statements are factually wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the Second Circuit's decision, I'm saying that there was a definitive decision, the case was not settled. And I'm not sure a single appeal constitutes "perpetual."
  - chasing 11y ago
    Wait, did you? "The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of 5 of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard." "On March 18, 2014, Cariou and Prince announced that they had settled the case." Seems like they mostly found for him, but not 100%. And before the lower court could have the final say, I'm guessing Prince settled out of court. The last thing he needs is any judgment against him. Seems like that could open him up to a flood of lawsuits. So it's kind of ambiguous. And, yeah, probably only ambiguous because he has the cash to put up a fight.
chrismcb 11y ago
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value? The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.
- mbrock 11y ago
  The fact that we're talking about it shows that it's interesting on some level. As it happens I was talking with my family last night about making money from photography and different business models, and then I stumbled on this article. So that's part of why I found it interesting. I also think it's generally interesting the effects that happen when you put a different frame around something and show it in a different context. An art gallery room full of huge Instagram pictures is weirdly appealing to me. Warhol's soup cans, too. By adding value I just mean that his work sells for millions while the stuff he "cites" doesn't. That's the free market... I don't make any ethical claims about that—I just think it's interesting (and kind of funny).
chrismcb 11y ago
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value? The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.
chrismcb 11y ago
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value? The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.

by mbrock 11y ago

KaiserPro 11y ago

Instagram 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 ago
But 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 ago
  The 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.
- chrismcb 11y ago
  One image, that he actually changed was judged as not breaking the law. Other works, including the Instagram detours, were he merely added a quoted have not been challenged. I personally don't think adding a quote is enough to transform the work

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xbryanx 11y ago

> protected by U.S. law Not entirely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince No definitive decision, and the case was settled.

pc86 11y ago
Did you read the article? The original court found in favor of Cariou, Price appealed, and won the appeal. Second Circuit Court found it fair use.
- jgeada 11y ago
  Because you cannot break the law if you're rich enough to afford perpetual appeals and good lawyers?
  - pc86 11y ago
    I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, but I'm assuming it's not mine since you're not replying to anything that I actually said. > No definitive decision, and the case was settled. Both statements are factually wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the Second Circuit's decision, I'm saying that there was a definitive decision, the case was not settled. And I'm not sure a single appeal constitutes "perpetual."
- chasing 11y ago
  Wait, did you? "The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of 5 of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard." "On March 18, 2014, Cariou and Prince announced that they had settled the case." Seems like they mostly found for him, but not 100%. And before the lower court could have the final say, I'm guessing Prince settled out of court. The last thing he needs is any judgment against him. Seems like that could open him up to a flood of lawsuits. So it's kind of ambiguous. And, yeah, probably only ambiguous because he has the cash to put up a fight.

chrismcb 11y ago

How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value? The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.

mbrock 11y ago
The fact that we're talking about it shows that it's interesting on some level. As it happens I was talking with my family last night about making money from photography and different business models, and then I stumbled on this article. So that's part of why I found it interesting. I also think it's generally interesting the effects that happen when you put a different frame around something and show it in a different context. An art gallery room full of huge Instagram pictures is weirdly appealing to me. Warhol's soup cans, too. By adding value I just mean that his work sells for millions while the stuff he "cites" doesn't. That's the free market... I don't make any ethical claims about that—I just think it's interesting (and kind of funny).

chrismcb 11y ago