Judy

Dear ArtConversation Visitors,

I am hoping to get a "conversation" going.....

I am not expert in copyright law.... but from what I read, Richard
Prince is in violation of copyright law. What he is doing would *not* be
covered by Fair Use (in my opinion). There is even case law that would support the original photographers of the ads that Richard Prince has lifted.

This would be a good topic for your students to debate. Maybe have a mock trial. See New York Times article:
If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What's the Original?
By RANDY KENNEDY
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/ar...ts&oref=slogin

If link doesn't work, it is the lead story today:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/arts/design/index.html

"Since the late 1970s, when Richard Prince became known as a pioneer of appropriation art — photographing other photographs, usually from magazine ads, then enlarging and exhibiting them in galleries — the question has always hovered just outside the frames: What do the photographers who took the original pictures think of these pictures of their pictures, apotheosized into art but without their names anywhere in sight?"

Says Jim Krantz (Marlboro Man Photographer):
"I'm not a mean person, and I'm not a vindictive person," ... "I just want some recognition, and I want some understanding."

Krantz needs a good lawyer who will take the case. Krantz would win! Prince's works "fail" the four tests of Fair Use.

Well...Mr. Krantz, you have understanding from me.

Regards,

Judy Decker

John

Hi Judy. My first thought is that Richard Prince isn't stealing from that photographer at all -- he's stealing from Warhol.

Warhol and the Pop Art movement did a lot of good by opening things up. He started out by taking objects (e.g. soap boxes) and imagery (e.g. magazine ads) and reframing them as "art". Nowadays there are fine artists who do "serious" graphic design and product packing. And you can go the MoMA and see a Dyson vacuum cleaner, or go to the Met and see a suit created by Elsa Schiaparelli. IMO art is universal so this is a good thing.

With respect to Richard prince, I don't see any particular problem with what he's doing, but he should cite his sources. Much of the power of that image obviously comes from the original photographer, and Prince shouldn't pretend that his noticing that ad is enough of an artistic contribution to re-sell it as his own.

Judy

Thanks John,

Another artist comes to mind, too.... Sherrie Levine.
At least she credits her sources for her works.

The copyright case against Jeff Koons set a precedent for artists creating derived works from photographs. There was another against Rauschenburg too.... And the Warhol Foundation has since been sued for Andy's use of photographs.

It is unfortunate for Krantz that he relinquished copyright to the clients. If he retained copyright it would be easier for him to get the recognition he deserves.

I think this is a good example for students to debate.

Judy Decker

Philip

While Koons and Warhol might also have "lifted" images from others, they did not leave them 100% intact in the journey to the gallery wall. They changed them, they worked on them in some fashion to create a new piece. A photo of Marilyn Monroe silk screened in wild colors in the highest contrast possible is not the same as the photo which it started out as. Plus there is a big difference between taking logos like Brillo and Campbell's, making them huge, coloring them, and framing them. You are taking commercial banal things and saying they are more than that, making you look at them in a new way. Now, people might quarrel with some or all of that for some of the same reasons, but all Richard Prince is doing is taking a photo of another person's photo, blowing it up, and framing it, nothing more. He is not changing it at all in the process - he is not even asking us to look at it in a new way. Curators of his shows try to write paragraphs and paragraphs saying he is, but the photo is identical and has nothing within the work itself which distinguishes it from the original. Tony Krantz could hang his own photo in a museum and it would not be one iota different. A Krantz is a Krantz is a Krantz and saying it is yours is just a lie, nothing more.

Under the Copyright law, fair use is determined using the following factors:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (Prince's work is commercial - he is making millions of dollars from work which is not his.)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work; (photos are copyrightable)
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (Prince has used 100% of the original unaltered)
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (hardest one to gauge here without more information but since his stealing does not line up with the the other 3, there is no fair use here)

I went to see the show at the Guggenheim in order to see for myself whether there was anything one could call "art" anywhere in this thing and whether these myriad stolen
images on the walls of this significant art institution were anything
other than someone else's work. I came away with one clear and strong
impression: Richard Prince is not an artist, he is collector - of
photos, of ads, of 8x10 publicity shots, TV Guides, posters, books,
magazines, cartoons, etc. It was more like wandering through a
collector's memorabilia shop full of comics in plastic sleeves and
signed stills under glass than walking through a museum. There was no
new art to be found in any of it. Despite the curators' copious lines
which try to turn these stolen images into art, they themselves are
just collected cartoons, photos, jokes, etc. displayed on a wall. If
they have any artistic value or merit, they had that long before Mr.
Prince stole and collected them.

If I had created any one of these images in the first instance, I
would be suing Richard Prince and anyone else culpable in a New York
minute. And I believe I would win - and quickly. If it is not
educational/research driven and it has taken 100% of a copyrighted
work with no alteration or clear comment it is not fair use.

In the end, I suppose I can not blame Prince for hoodwinking the art
establishment and making millions off everything from stolen photos to
his own dingy house in Rensselaerville, New York but I do blame both
the copyright holders of the work he pilfers (for not pursuing him in
a court of law) as well as the art establishment and the millionaire
collectors for calling him "artist" and paying him anything at all,
let alone the uber-artist rates he gets. If they really love his
images, they should simply "appropriate" them. I could do any one of
his Joke paintings in my living room or take a photo of a magazine ad
and blow it up and it wouldn't cost me more than $50. Why would I pay
$700K or more for the same thing? And in any case, wouldn't such
"appropriation" be the sincerest form of flattery for such an "artist"
as this? He taught us that that is what you do: you steal, you
collect, you display, but you do not acknowledge the creator nor pay
him anything for his work. Just take it, one way or the other. That
is the sad lesson of Richard Prince.

In a world in which everything is art, nothing is art.

Unregistered