|
|
Post by Alan Petersen on May 29, 2015 13:21:14 GMT -5
Nuts! This dude finds an Instagram photo he likes, he adds his comment to it, takes a screenshot, sends it to his assistant who blows it up and turn it into a screen print which is then hung in an art gallery and sold for as much as $90,000 a pop! www.vulture.com/2015/05/did-richard-prince-steal-from-instagram.htmlThe video from CNN states that since the photos were uploaded into a third party public site to be seen by everyone they're in the public domain and the original creator of the photo gets zilch. They're not even asked if they can use their photo. Crazy times we're living in! |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on May 29, 2015 13:29:49 GMT -5
People are shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rinelle Grey on May 30, 2015 6:38:28 GMT -5
I looked into this a bit, and the theory is that because he changes the images (adding his own caption), it fits under the transformative laws (which allow people to do parodies etc). I suspect it might not hold up in a court of law though. Will be interesting to see if anyone challenges it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on May 30, 2015 9:03:16 GMT -5
I saw this. The real question for me isn't the copyright issue; it's why anyone would pay $90K for one of those things. ETA: Guess I'm a bit of a philistine when it comes to modern art.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Petersen on May 30, 2015 11:14:13 GMT -5
I looked into this a bit, and the theory is that because he changes the images (adding his own caption), it fits under the transformative laws (which allow people to do parodies etc). I suspect it might not hold up in a court of law though. Will be interesting to see if anyone challenges it. This "artist" has a history of doing this and he stole from another photographer a few years and that photographer sued, won, but then the decision was overturned on appeal. I'm not sure if the photographer appealed that, but you would need very deep pockets to take this stuff to court. Which is probably why this dude is now stealing from regular folks uploading to Instagram since they won't have the resources for a costly lawsuit. Maybe if Instagram sues him or makes it clear in their terms you can't do this? Not sure. The Suicide Girls website fought back brilliantly. One of their images was stolen and sold for $90,000 and now they're offering the same exact print (with even better quality since they had the original image not a screenshot) for sale (multiple copies) for $90. So whoever bought that print for $90,000 is going to pissed off that tons of the same print are now being sold for $90! www.fastcompany.com/3046798/the-recommender/whoever-bought-this-90k-richard-prince-instagram-print-is-about-to-be-pissedI saw this. The real question for me isn't the copyright issue; it's why anyone would pay $90K for one of those things. ETA: Guess I'm a bit of a philistine when it comes to modern art. The stack of old newspapers tied with an old rope on the floor of an art museum I visited wasn't for recycling it was an art piece.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rinelle Grey on May 30, 2015 22:07:58 GMT -5
Yes, but in the case he counter won, he changed the actual images. In this case, he's only changed the captions. I personally feel (not a lawyer!) that means that the transformative principle wouldn't apply, since the actual IMAGES themselves are untouched. In fact, by changing the captions, I can't see why he hasn't opened himself up to libel charges etc.
|
|
