Richard Prince continues to push the boundaries of copyright law, if not the art world.
In 2014 he exhibited dozens of inkjet prints on canvas–Instagram posts that the artist had commented on, then enlarged and printed out on canvas–at the Gagosian Gallery in New York City. Collector Daily's review lauded his appropriations, declaring that they break down "our new way of communicating" and rebuild it into a vehicle for social satire: "While we may think that the images we post online are 'secure' or 'ours' in some manner, his pictures quickly undermine that outdated fantasy."
Others disagree. The photographer of one of the images quickly registered his copyright, complained and recently sued.
What do you think? Were Richard Prince' s changes transformative and so a fair use? The changes were:
- A comment on the Instagram feed featuring the photograph: "Canal Zinian de lam jam (emoji)".
- Cropping of the bottom and top portions of the photograph and adding elements of the Instagram graphic user interface (this happens automatically by using a cell phone screen print feature).
- Enlarging the screen print and printing it on to a different medium (canvas).
(images are here)
Does your answer change if you review the Second Circuit's 2013 decision finding that 25 out of 30 of his works qualified as non-infringing fair use? (Richard Prince argues "This lawsuit reflects an attempt to essentially re-litigate Cariou and should be dismissed with prejudice.")
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
