Reading mode: Light Dark

The Richest Photographer in the World

Go to last post
Brad Bohland said:
Individuals often think society owes them everything and that they owe society nothing.

Actually, society has every right to appropriate all individual creations, by asserting, correctly, that “You couldn’t even exist without us.”
Click to expand...
This is where we end. I don't know where you get that idea, but it's toxic.
 
stevo23 said:
Brad Bohland said:
Individuals often think society owes them everything and that they owe society nothing.

Actually, society has every right to appropriate all individual creations, by asserting, correctly, that “You couldn’t even exist without us.”
Click to expand...
This is where we end. I don't know where you get that idea, but it's toxic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I totally agree. If it's OK that anyone at any time can get their ideas stolen then than there's less and less incentive for even coming up with those ideas in the first place. Once can argue that certain innovations would likely never have happened without stealing, but I don't really feel hat this justifies the practice. The end doesn't always justify the means, as was stated pretty well before in the argument here.

I do totally agree with the fact that lots of things require a certain amount of appropriation to work. Prince's work is one and even though I'm not a particular fan of it I feel that I understand some of the concepts that he's using in his work... about how we have images all around us and can't help but being influenced by them (it's more complicated than that, but I'm not going into detail). I like some music made with samples of other music as I think that recontextualized, one thing can turn it into something else entirely. I still believe that folks who's work is appropiating in this kind of thing, or in the sciences or tech need to be credited and depending on what it is, paid for thier contributions.

I think that appropriation in the arts and building on other's ideas in sciences and tech is important and necessary.... but I don't think that this means that folks shouldn't get something for their original contributions...
 
stevo23 said:
That's right, hold that schlock in high regard. It's art because a bunch of other artists and gallery owners are telling you it's high art. But it's just another scam foisted on society to make money. Artists and gallery owners have a little thing going. It says, "hopefully, we can find the latest fad and make some money because we deserve it. No one respects the real stuff and it doesn't move fast enough. So we'll find the latest Warhol or Prince we'll make a mint."
Click to expand...
First off, he and I where talking about Picasso. If you too think that Picasso is where he is in history because some money grabbing gallerists told "us" so, than you have the worldview of a five year old. The world doesn't work that way, it is not that simple. Art is nothing that anyone "needs" like food or shelter, so nobody can be forced to buy it at any price someone randomly pulls out of their behinds. There are many reasons why an artist is held in high regard and these reason, while historically contingent, are anything but random. Second: appropriation art is not exactly the latest "fad", it has a well established tradition in art history.
 
Ned Fleming said:
In this regard, he's another Warhol or Picasso, well-paid for doing nothing. Nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
So he's a clueless jerk without skill that knows how to make money. No thanks. I'd rather be poor, although I'm not, than to be someone who has to steal because he lacks in every way.

I yawn at him. He's nothing.
 
Clubby said:
stevo23 said:
That's right, hold that schlock in high regard. It's art because a bunch of other artists and gallery owners are telling you it's high art. But it's just another scam foisted on society to make money. Artists and gallery owners have a little thing going. It says, "hopefully, we can find the latest fad and make some money because we deserve it. No one respects the real stuff and it doesn't move fast enough. So we'll find the latest Warhol or Prince we'll make a mint."
Click to expand...
First off, he and I where talking about Picasso. If you too think that Picasso is where he is in history because some money grabbing gallerists told "us" so, than you have the worldview of a five year old. The world doesn't work that way, it is not that simple. Art is nothing that anyone "needs" like food or shelter, so nobody can be forced to buy it at any price someone randomly pulls out of their behinds. There are many reasons why an artist is held in high regard and these reason, while historically contingent, are anything but random. Second: appropriation art is not exactly the latest "fad", it has a well established tradition in art history.
Click to expand...
Well, if the context is confined necessarily and only to Picasso, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the general idea. It's of course my opinion of pop art and the fact that so much of what we see in galleries isn't very artistic.
 
The owner of his Lens should certainly warrant the Title of richest Photographer, cost $2000000.



50a40b2bae044aa89dad331c3a284f3a.jpg
 
Brad Bohland said:
Individuals often think society owes them everything and that they owe society nothing.

Richard Prince took some Instagram images created by others and made money on them, and he did something similar with other photos. Whether his use of these images was legal or ethical depends, for me, not on the single value of the creators’ rights, but on the dual values of the creators’ rights in light of the greater good.
Click to expand...
Prince's work is not about public domain. It's basically about violating copyright and/or fair use.

As far as I know, not a single piece Prince has appropriated is in the public domain. Not one. If he was exploring the concept of "influence," he would draw as much -- if not more -- from public domain than from copyrighted works.

The Instagram images are not in public domain. The posters retain their copyrights, even if they do not have the resources to defend their copyrights in court. Prince did not ask permission to print and sell their works, and barely transformed the works, thus there should be little doubt he violated their copyrights.

As noted, the only possible legal and ethical rationale he might have for that series is a fair use claim. I don't think the minimal transformation in that case in any way justifies a fair use claim.

This is also not about the "greater good." Nothing Prince has done with these images benefits society as a whole. What it's done is make money for himself and his dealer, not exactly a high ethical calling.
 
SpinOne said:
Brad Bohland said:
Individuals often think society owes them everything and that they owe society nothing.

Richard Prince took some Instagram images created by others and made money on them, and he did something similar with other photos. Whether his use of these images was legal or ethical depends, for me, not on the single value of the creators’ rights, but on the dual values of the creators’ rights in light of the greater good.
Click to expand...
Prince's work is not about public domain. It's basically about violating copyright and/or fair use.

As far as I know, not a single piece Prince has appropriated is in the public domain. Not one. If he was exploring the concept of "influence," he would draw as much -- if not more -- from public domain than from copyrighted works.

The Instagram images are not in public domain. The posters retain their copyrights, even if they do not have the resources to defend their copyrights in court. Prince did not ask permission to print and sell their works, and barely transformed the works, thus there should be little doubt he violated their copyrights.

As noted, the only possible legal and ethical rationale he might have for that series is a fair use claim. I don't think the minimal transformation in that case in any way justifies a fair use claim.
Click to expand...
The courts ruled mostly in favor of Prince in 2013 - sadly. He finally settled and I assume it's because a small number of the works weren't decided and were being sent to another court. We don't know if he would have won those as well, but the fact that he won any claims is ludicrous.

Looking at what he did to the Rasta photos and realizing that any court deemed it okay is sad to me. Looking at his work in general makes me cringe. He should have been locked up as a fraud for claiming to be an artist. His work is pure garbage.
 
"...there should be little doubt he violated their copyrights."

That's precisely what the discussion is about. If there was no doubt about it, there wouldn't be anything to discuss.
 
"Private property is a relatively recent invention."

Society not only has the ultimate right to what you produce, it has the right to your very existence.

The military draft exists as proof that society is more important than the individual. It's society's ultimate way of saying "You exist because of us, not the other way around."

Property rights are given to individuals in order to serve a social end, not because there is anything sacred about the individual.

Fair use is one way that copyright protection is modified in order to benefit society. It's another indication of the tension between the individual and society.

When people like Prince, Jobs, and Gates appropriate other people's creations for their own use, the courts decide whether society is best served by keeping the benefits private or by expanding those benefits and making them partially available to others prior to making them entirely available by designating them as public domain.

In the end, it is the public good which decides these questions, not some inflated value placed on individual rights.
 
Last edited:
Brad Bohland said:
In the end, it is the public good which decides these questions, not some inflated value placed on individual rights.
Click to expand...
Or, the skill of their attorneys.

Keep in mind that appropriation artists don't always do well in the courts. Jeff Koons has been sued at least five times, has several of the cases, and is getting sued again. Fairey was forced to settle with AP. Elizabeth Peyton and Damien Loeb both stopped using copyrighted photos as source materials for their paintings, due to legal threats. Hip hop artists have been bludgeoned into routinely clearing samples. Pharrell & Thicke obviously got railed for "Blurred Lines."

Prince's partial victory in the Cariou case was based on its transformation, and the idea that Prince was not commenting on the images (i.e. the court asserted he was trying, on some level, to make something new). The Instagram images seem designed to intentionally flout that ruling... as the only transformation he made was to comment on the images. (And again, regardless of the sales, he was pilloried in the press for the series.)

The Instagram series might never be tested in court -- the copyright holders only have 3 years after they learn of infringement to sue; it is likely that most lack legal resources to sue, or don't want to give him further attention. However, I'm fairly confident that even with excellent legal advice and several hearings under his belt, it'd be very difficult for him to win this one.
 
Brad Bohland said:
"I don't know where you get that idea..."

History. Private property is a relatively recent invention.

"There was no mention here of individual or civil rights. Rather, the emphasis was entirely on the medieval concept of group or corporate rights."

https://books.google.com/books?id=r...&q=when did individual rights develop&f=false
Click to expand...
You can stop trying to convince me, I'm no longer interested.

Back to the OP - the photographer in question isn't an artist, he's a wart. Nothing he has "created" or "appropriated" has any lasting merit. Drawing funny outlines and faces on top of a Jamaican guy in a photo has no lasting value and does nothing for the greater good.
 
"Or, the skill of their attorneys."

Sure. Everyone wants a piece of the cake created by innovators. And why shouldn't they?

My point is that everyone is out for themselves and no one cares about the greater good. (Nonetheless, the system does seem to work, I'll admit.)

And somehow in spite of all the greedy individualism on the part of copyright holders, copyright infringement, and all the lawyers, the public domain does get a piece of the action as well.

Fair use is the greater good infringing on the copyright during the copyright holder's lifetime, and ultimately the public domain takes it all, so it can be shared freely by everyone.

Other types of infringement succeed as well, which, though it may disadvantage the individual, benefits others. People like Prince aren't the only winners in successful appropriation litigation--the whole community is enriched by making information accessible to all.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
"...take Prince's work and transform it and charge $900,000....I assert copyright on that..."

Here's hoping you won't sue me for quoting you.

I know nothing about the guy, but apparently he approved of the one Instagram "victim" who did do a reversal on him. Who knows, maybe he has a sense of humor.

In any case, I'd love to see it taken to court just to see how it would turn out. At least a couple of lawyers have said they were certain he would lose, but I guess they're not confident enough to take him on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top