Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,212   Posts: 1,659,445   Online: 909
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,972
    Blog Entries
    12
    Images
    59
    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 ..

  2. #22
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,840
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    Particularly since, as the judge in the case noted, it's been a matter of settled case law for the better part of a century that photographs are original works in the meaning of copyright law. To base your defense on a theory that was dispensed with decades ago is really weak.
    I expect that the argument wasn't an attempt to upset the case law, but rather an attempt to distinguish that case law by characterizing Patrick Cariou's work as something so mundane as to not be entitled to protection.

    The argument might work if the "purloined" photographs came from something like, as an example, a mall security camera.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #23
    JOSarff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    203
    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.
    There is no such thing as taking too much time, because your soul is in that picture. -Ruth Bernhard

  4. #24
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #25
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,791
    Images
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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.
    Of course, you've got to wonder what kind of an idiot would separate themselves from a cool couple of million to own one. I don't think much of anyone throwing around that kind of cash to buy that kind of art.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    third stone from the sun
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    751
    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.

  7. #27
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nicholasville, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,972
    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.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    third stone from the sun
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    751
    Moot point.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Sounds like a fair verdict and I cannot see how it could ever have been in doubt really. It also represents a court's unwillingness to believe that, as one person put it, 'juvenile scribblings' constitutes a complete change and rework of the original. I have no sympathy for Prince whatsoever. After all, if Cariou's work was essentially a 'mere compilation of facts' the least Prince could have done was get off his @ss and produce his own 'mere compilation of facts' from which to work. Even if the originals were 'factual' they were Cariou's 'factual compilations.' Prince's legal position also suggests that a lay person cannot really claim to own something they made unless someone else (read lofty artist like Prince) regards it is 'sufficiently creative as to earn the status of a meaningful creation.' The arrogance is astonishing and as pretentious as the art world can be, I can't help but feel that prince has ruined his credibility in court. There is nothing cool about showing a total lack of respect for other people and the value of their work, while essential admitting you thought you set the value of other people's creations.... and can take at will those things you do not rate highly. For justice to be served, this ought to be the end of Prince's career.

  10. #30
    rcam72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Port Chester, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    104
    Images
    1
    There's a better article here at PDN on-line:

    http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Ap...ist-2241.shtml

    Maybe misappropriation-artist from now on?

    Raul

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin