4 ms·
The sorry and incoherent state of copyright law in the year 2015: Richard Prince's version of Fair Use [1] and the other extreme which consists of this song an
by mxfh 11y ago
The sorry and incoherent state of copyright law in the year 2015:
Richard Prince's version of Fair Use [1] and the other extreme which consists of this song and the Marvin Gaye vs. Thicke/Williams situation [2]. It's just crazy that these two extremes co-exist under the same law.
How is putting in a different name of the jubilant and some variation in the performance not on the same level of appropriation and fair use compared to Prince's instagram-plus-a-comment work?
[1] http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/ http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other...
[2] http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-family-is-terrible-for-the-future-of-music/ http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-fa...
- couchand 11y agoThanks for linking the article about Richard Prince, I hadn't heard that story. The artnet article they link to, Richard Prince Sucks [0], is even better. "Here's what I've got by way of reflection: Prince likes images of breasts. We can trace appropriation precedents back to Warhol, and Prince as an early adopter, but who cares? Copy-paste culture is so ubiquitous now that appropriation remains relevant only to those who have piles of money invested in appropriation artists. The work on canvas looks about as good as you'd expect for a tiny, 72 DPI image, which is to say they are fuzzy and better viewed on a phone." [0]: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-13635...