p.1 #3 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
Better to be Appropriation Artist than Photographer:
"Cario [photographer]...has earned just over $8,000 in royalties from Rasta since its publication. He has sold four prints from the book, and only to personal acquaintances."
"Prince ["appropriation artist"] sold eight artworks for a total of $10,480,000, and exchanged seven others for works by painter Larry Rivers and by sculptor Richard Serra."
p.1 #4 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
I would probably agree with the last lines of the article,
Donn Zaretsky, a lawyer who blogs about art-law cases and has closely followed the Prince case, agreed with Mr. Brooks. “To me it’s a missed opportunity to really bring some clarity to this issue,” he said. “How do you decide whether something is transformative or just not quite transformative enough?” .
The decision remains highly dependent on the case itself. So this means it is still possible to make broad challenges to fair use doctrine in courts in the future.
p.1 #5 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
"Fair use" ends, unequivocally, when the "user" (thief) earns a single cent from the "use" (theft). If the court says otherwise they're accomplices to the crime. Cario is entitled to every cent Prince "earned" from his "use."
p.1 #6 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
+1 @ fair use = no $$$ gain ... and transformative/derviative is no excuse.
I made it, you took it for personal gain = theft ... too simple.
Oh, but you put work into to make it different ... yeah, I put work into it too, before you got your hands on it.
50/50 split @ profits or jail for theft.
Vent/rant ... but c'mon where does it end and why is it so difficult to comprehend ... you are not entitled to my stuff, go make your own stuff (or pay me/someone to do it for you).
p.1 #7 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
RustyBug wrote:
Legalized theft
The best definition!
Comparing to this specimen - Richard Prince - a Wolfgang Beltracchi is a hard working artist.
A Beltracchi sweats for his work. He looks for canvases, colours, and most notably he invents/reinvents/continues somebody elses work. He is a talented painter ( I`m not saying copyer because he didn`t do that). Not anyone could do that.
A richard prince started by photographing the Marlboro man series/advertisement. Let me emphasize it: he photographed a print. He enhanced the colours,printed them large and sold them for millions.
What I can`t understand is why somebody would pay millions for a known fake?
p.1 #9 · Appeals Court Ruling in Copyright Case Allows Artist’s Re-Use of Photos
mdude85 wrote:
I would probably agree with the last lines of the article,
.
The decision remains highly dependent on the case itself. So this means it is still possible to make broad challenges to fair use doctrine in courts in the future.
I often wonder if it's possible to bring clarity to these issues, given how fact-intensive each case is. Further, each regional federal circuit can each interpret the law differently.
