Technically whoever took the pictures OWN the pictures. Which is why the paparazzi can do what they do, if they take the picture they own it. Doesn’t matter how they got it. So if some of these are selfies the person owns them. If some of these are professionally taken they are owned (and usually copyrighted) to the professional and/or studio.
As he also isn’t covering up the Instagram screen names anyone who sees their name has the right to sue for distribution of ‘personal information’ as this can lead to identity theft, stalking, or what have you. Whose to say people aren’t going to stalk some of the subjects of the picture because they think they are pretty or whatever.
Yes, if you post something it’s out in the world, but still, you are posting them under your name, after you took the picture, and once you post they should technically be copyright to you.
So I guess the only way to get him to stop if he takes a picture that a professional took or a studio took and is ‘owned’ by the studio/professional, then that’s infringement as money was exchanged to the studio/professional and he ripped them off for a higher price. That’s my guess.
Wow, lots of talk here but I didn’t see anything that moves me off the fence.
On the one hand, the transformative “loophole” allows for some really great stuff to be produced that otherwise wouldn’t see the light of day. I’d hate to see that thrown out.
On the other hand, I fail to see significant transformation. It’s as if one copied a work and painted a small red dot in the corner. (Which sounds familiar – didn’t someone do that?)
I sort of see the transformative aspect here but it’s minimal, and I don’t understand why the courts haven’t held the bar there a wee bit higher.
(Whether it’s legal or not or right or not has nothing to do with whether it’s lazy, effortless, crass, unimaginative, or even exploitative dickery. All of which it may or may not be it be.)
The fact the people are dying because their remote village has no access to safe food and water; a problem that could be remedied with less money than one of these ripped off photos sell for, is proof that humans can be fucking horrible idiots. $100,000 for a picture that ANYONE can cut and paste into a file and have framed as “art”? Seriously. If you have enough cash to light it on fire buying stupid shit like this, how about using the same amount and save an entire village by providing them a safe water source? That way, your pesky money is gone and you’ve actually done something good for the world instead of whacking off to how rich you are by purchasing crap for $100,000 just because you can.
If he’s using copyright laws to his advantage, then the argument can be made that he should have to pay royalties to the people who took the original photos. I know that’s the case when it comes to music (i work in copyright for a major music company, speaking from experience here) - anyone can perform/broadcast your music so long as they pay you royalties, by law they have to pay you a certain amount in royalties for reproducing your work, especially if they are selling it. Idk much about this artist or his previous endeavors (don’t feel like googling either) but, seriously, if this were a major celebrity’s instagram shot being used, this guy would get shut down immediately. I’d definitely speak to a lawyer if my post/photo was sold… Also, maybe everyone should start watermarking their posted photos.
I suspect the rich pay for Prince’s work BECAUSE it is theft. "Oh what agreat guy, look how he ripped of those f-kers". That would explain why the images are worth nothing until he attaches the scumbag label of his name to them.
It’s the American dream at work, and the original creators are the natives.
Note quite - he’s also including comments and Instagram activity indicators. So, he is effectively selling a screenshot from the Instagram app itself, blown up onto canvas. There’s some transformative nature there, and I’m sure he’s spun some bullshit narrative to go with it. And voila, art. Whether or not the courts would agree, I dunno, and I still think it’s terribly unoriginal, but there is some transformation there, as minimal as it is.
I like that analogy. This is essentially the same as sampling, in the music world. Except even more blatant, since he’s taking the entire work (the whole original photo), not modifying it in any way, only adding to it by including the (minimal, in my opinion) added context of the Instagram page.
If his additions are only “added” by taking a screenshot of the associated post information, it seems like he would still run into trouble re: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. since a screenshot would just be an artless reproduction of a copyrighted work with non-copyrightable elements surrounding it.
Did I not mention clamshekels are physical objects, 19 feet across and 3 feet thick? They are also traditionally coated with Teflon and are lopsided, which makes stacking them… Well… You’ll see.
