MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: KnowYourOnions on May 27, 2015, 09:50
-
This month, painter and photographer Richard Prince reminded us that what you post is public, and given the flexibility of copyright laws, can be shared — and sold — for anyone to see. As a part of the Frieze Art Fair in New York, Prince displayed giant screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission. According to Vulture, nearly every piece sold for $90,000 each. :o
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/)
-
Indeed. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/image-appropriation-enters-%27the-twilight-zone%27/msg419883 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/image-appropriation-enters-%27the-twilight-zone%27/msg419883/?topicseen#new)
-
oh cool ... missed that thread!
thanks ShadySue
-
Does he trolling Instagram and others? Anyway person which did not give a release has the right to sue him.
-
I had to smile at what lemongirl wrote: "Of course you know what people can do, right? Screen shot his photos, put in different text and offer those for sale. Be sure to let people know that's what you did. Cash in on his name." ;D
-
Does he trolling Instagram and others? Anyway person which did not give a release has the right to sue him.
He was sued and lost then he appealed to a higher court and won, (probably cause on appeal the other party never showed)?
http://uproxx.com/media/2015/05/prince-instagram-art-show-thousands/?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=mountain&utm_campaign=CMfacebook (http://uproxx.com/media/2015/05/prince-instagram-art-show-thousands/?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=mountain&utm_campaign=CMfacebook)
Prince has been ‘rephotographing’ since 1975, and has been taken to court in the past after a French photographer claimed 35 of his images were lifted by the lazy “artist”.
In 2011 a US District judge ruled against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, which displayed the photos, stating that Prince’s use of the images did not fall under fair use. A US Court of Appeals, however, mostly reversed the ruling two years later, stating that the majority of the works were transformative while a lower court was to review the other works.
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/richard-prince-is-a-jerk/ (http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/richard-prince-is-a-jerk/)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150415 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150415)
-
$90 VS. $90,000: SUICIDEGIRLS ARE SELLING THEIR RICHARD PRINCE-APPROPRIATED INSTAGRAM PHOTOS
http://www.artnews.com/2015/05/27/90-vs-90000-suicidegirls-are-selling-their-richard-prince-appropriated-instagram-photos/ (http://www.artnews.com/2015/05/27/90-vs-90000-suicidegirls-are-selling-their-richard-prince-appropriated-instagram-photos/)
SuicideGirls founder Selena Mooney (also known as Missy Suicide), has announced online that she is planning to also sell prints of the images Prince used for $90 each, with all proceeds going to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Prince retweeted her post, which reads, “Do we have Mr. Prince’s permission to sell these prints? We have the same permission from him that he had from us. ;)”
I love this. They've effectively torpedoed the value of the Prince prints by making the same art available in the same printed format but at a fraction of the price. And maybe even making these new prints potentially more valuable since they come from the actual owners of the images.
If everyone did this every time Prince pulled one of these stunts they'd put him out of business quickly. Who would buy his stuff today knowing that the market could be flooded with the same exact art tomorrow?
-
I know this is old but I thought it was worth commenting on rather than starting a new thread.
The article is from January but I just found it today and never saw it mentioned here and I think it is something people will be interested in.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-lawsuit-expert-opinions-402173
-
This guy should be bankrupt and in jail.
-
I know this is old but I thought it was worth commenting on rather than starting a new thread.
The article is from January but I just found it today and never saw it mentioned here and I think it is something people will be interested in.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-lawsuit-expert-opinions-402173
Very interesting read - thanks for posting a link
-
excuse my miscomprehension...
the article is so lengthy and i am a muddle head
as to who is who...
- is the dude Instagram or connected with.
- or is it just someone who used the photographer's work
and then claims it as his or rightful to use ?
-or is this guy who claims fair usage the owner of Instagram?
only thing i get is that someone is saying he can use our photos
and get away with making money with it , right???
the problem is just that...
with the law on their side, who needs the law?
or is it deliberate , so you a famous photographer will have to retain a lawyer
...
another legal conspiracy , no???