I hope to one day see the headline,
"Artist Uses Richard Prince’s Dead Body As Sculpture"
and we can continue the debate on what is art and who has permission to use other people’s image.
6 Likes
Of course, it’s just that usually, they at least make the tiny effort of hiding behind excuses of ‘historical relevance’ or some such to justify the overblown prices. If they’re going to resort to such pedestrian gimmicks, why not just exchange money for a post-it with the given price on it.
Wait. Has anyone tried this yet?
5 Likes
If you make a photograph, by the interaction of your eye, finger and camera, you have created a (somewhat) unique image. This is copyrighted at it’s moment of creation, tada! If I ‘borrow’ your image, put my name at the bottom and declare it mine, to my eye, that is theft. A slug of comment text about someone else’s image isn’t transformative of the original image.
As someone who makes their living making and refining images, I find it depressing that internet culture is now, Everything is Free! (except at the boingboing store). Unless I specifically give away my rights, I’d like to retain them as per the law… ymmv
4 Likes
If it wasn’t priced at $100K, no one would buy it. It isn’t bought because it’s a beautiful object, it’s procured to include the owner in an elitist club of absurd Richard prince art owners.
8 Likes
Wow. Legalities aside this seems like a huge, asshole thing to do. I mean, I can’t even. I feel guilty when I copy artwork to try to learn from it. I can’t imagine just printing out a screen cap and selling it…
Who the fuck is buying this? They could make their own for a fraction of the cost - or contact the real photographer.
Though I do want to know how you bump up resolution from a screen cap to a large format print like that.
7 Likes
Who owns the rights to images posted on Instagram anyway?
Isn’t it Instagram?
3 Likes
I think this just proves that: if you are wealthy enough you can infringe or enforce copyright, which ever better fits your need, if you’re not well tough luck. there for copyright is effectively useless. so we should probably just get rid of it.
2 Likes
No, the person (or being) that took the photograph. They have the right to distribute it on their servers per their TOS, but should the original copyright holder delete the image Instagram must remove all copies of it from their system.
Pretty standard for all image sharing sites. But it means the rightsholder needs to do all the legal chasing to secure their rights.
Yes, it’s all about bragging rights among the shallow but wealthy narcissist class. The story they get to tell about it is part of the value. and those guys love a good story about some little person being ripped off.
That being said, you are free to try it yourself, all you presumers to the prince’s throne. That is at least part of the point. you can try, but he actually gets that kind of money for this work. Go ahead and try. It is not that easy.
I also think that Koons has lost such suits and had to pay the original artist. He can afford it and so can Prince. So I suspect that is the outcome of most of these suits
1 Like
Yeah:
Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content
2 Likes
That guy got away with murder, let’s just stop enforcing that too.
:rolleyes:
You said before you were being pedantic. Copying isn’t theft, regardless of ethics, legality, morality, etc.; if we wish to communicate with other minds we need to use a common shared language and not make Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of words.
[quote]“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t- till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
–Rev. Charles Dodgson, Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI [/quote]
6 Likes
The person who took the photo owns the copyright. The Instagram TOS probably*** reserves to the site a perpetual non-exclusive license to the display of the image.
***IAAL, but haven’t read the Instagram TOS, nor desire to do so unless someone is paying my hourly rate.
I note that his wikipedia page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince – was edited just today to introduce “quotation marks” around certain words:
5 Likes
Value has nothing to do with quality – value is what people are willing to part with in order to obtain goods or services (which may include experiences).
Surely for the general uplift of society?
5 Likes
Sold 8 copies, apparently.
Personally, I like the “bootleg” work of Eric Doeringer and I regret not having bought any of it yet.
The comments are flying fast and furious over in the facebook copy of this post.
WHICH IS ITSELF AN ERSATZ COPY OF THE ORIGNAL FOR SHAME
At any rate, this appeared in those comments I AM STEALING APPROPRIATING IT
http://hyperallergic.com/157548/a-young-artist-debuts-at-gagosian-thanks-to-richard-prince/
2 Likes
Agreed.
From Websters:
Theft
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
I see no rightful owner deprived of their property. Call it pirating, copyright infringement. Hell, make up your own word, but it’s not theft.
4 Likes
