I'm betting the photographer who did the real work would rather have the 10m in cash.
this doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things.
he'll still make his artwork and still sell it .. and he'll just be
more careful of whose work he uses as the foundation of HIS images ..
The argument might work if the "purloined" photographs came from something like, as an example, a mall security camera.
From the Gardian article
"Prince has often made a virtue of his appropriation art.... He told Art Forum magazine in 2003: "I had limited technical skills regarding the camera. Actually, I had no skills … I used a cheap commercial laboratory to blow up the pictures … I never went in a darkroom."
"Prince's lawyers had told Deborah Batts, a federal judge sitting in Manhattan, that Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians, taken over six years, were "mere compilations of facts … arranged with minimum creativity … [and were] therefore not protectable" by copyright law."
Frankly, Prince's arrogance is staggering and one would hope that not only will ne have to destroy his copies of the Cariou photograph’s, as already ordered, but will also refund the sales to art patrons that purchased his frauds then finally pay a very hefty settlement to Mr. Cariou.
Perhaps the art patrons that were fooled by Prince should buy the real thing this time.
That is what I find most galling about Prince. He is willing, to protect himself and his income stream, to assert the works of another are without artistic merit until he modifies them, after which they are worth millions. He is an amoral scumbag charlatan.
Wow! How do you guys feel about Sherrie Levine?
As with all the pictures generation artists the concern is not with originality but rather with the multi-valence of the image and the cultural effects of its consumption. In regards to this relationship, Prince is a trickster and in many ways his work presages the debates surrounding originality, content and ownership that have been so prevalent in the digital era. What value you assign to Prince's artistic practice is really beside the point.
There is a difference in purpose between Prince and Levine. Levine's entire concept was that the work she stole may be famous, but not original in a world saturated with images. Prince stole the work because he is too lazy to make it himself. And he is 30 years too late with the idea of false originality. While I don't like Levine's work, she was at least original in the idea for the time it was done. Prince doesn't have that excuse.