How is this legal?

smcaskil · Jan 10, 2008

While technically a photograph, the Prince work is better described as a re-photograph. Created in 1989, the piece is one in a series of photos Prince took of portions of Marlboro cigarette ads. Prince began photographing advertisements torn from magazines while working as a press clips collator at Time Life in the 1970s. This particular print is one of two other than the artist's proof; the other is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

He actually created these images are part of his work Time Life as a press clips collator. While working for them, he would photograph interesting ads and now is turning around and selling them for millions.

What he actually did was steal from his employer, Time Life, since he was doing his own project while on their time clock. He then stole from RJR Tobacco when he used an image they most likely paid handsomely to make an iconic image throughout the years.

Now he is sitting at home, collecting millions for doing nothing more than taking a photograph of a well-known image. Keep that guy out of the Louvre with his camera!

Neuner · Jan 10, 2008

jstuedle said:
I doubt there will be any 600 Y.O. sculptors filing suit in the near future to settle case law.

So? What's your point?

craig · Jan 10, 2008

Seems to me that Richard Prince has a message and people are buying it. I doubt that any one spending 3 mill on a photo is an idiot. I also doubt that there are sketchy copyright implications. If I was interested I would spend more time understanding Prince's work.

Love & Bass

Josh66 · Jan 11, 2008

smcaskil said:
He then stole from RJR Tobacco when he used an image they most likely paid handsomely to make an iconic image throughout the years.

I think Marlboro is Phillip Morris, not RJR...

craig said:
I also doubt that there are sketchy copyright implications.

You're probably right... If it was illegal I'm sure it would be taken to court very quickly. It just seems wrong though.

Does anyone know the relevant copyright laws? Is it legal because the ad was widely known? Because it is now no longer an ad, but art?

I just can't figure out what makes it OK (legally, ...to me it is not OK, morally). I just don't see myself "getting away with it" if I tried the same thing. Do copyrights expire eventually (I don't think so, but I don't know a whole lot about copyright law) - like a patent?

Neuner said:
I think there is a lot of gray area with what he has done. It's not the same as directly printing off someone else's work, he snapped a photo of something that was publicly displayed.

Yeah, but isn't everything on here "publicly displayed" too? This forum may not have as large of an audience as a Marlboro ad, but it's not exactly inaccessible to the general public.

monkeykoder · Jan 11, 2008

It probably has something to do with the fact that that photo selling for that much is just like advertisement for said company and suing would be bad press.

Mesoam · Jan 11, 2008

boy imagine that exquisite piece hanging above your mantle

//end sarcasm

RMThompson · Jan 11, 2008

I think that the "artist" is trying to pass it off as a found art piece, but what a joke. I mean if the ad was something NOT ARTISTIC that turned artistic, I could somewhat understand... but this already was art.

Mike_E · Jan 11, 2008

NObody griped about a stack of soup cans.

LOLOLOL

Puscas · Jan 11, 2008

ah man, I just came up with the idea of taking a pic of a cigarette ad, blowing it up and selling it as art. Guess I'm too late?

Well, back to my dayjob then.

pascal

salexander867 · Jan 12, 2008

I am not sure how a true artist could take credit for this. This, to me, is like one of you selling a photo for an ad. Then I see the add and decide that I do not like the way you cropped the pic so I take a photo of your photo and crop it to the way I like. Then sell it as my own photo.

I would have done nothing artistic other than the crop. I didn't do the setup or determine exposure, etc.

monkeykoder · Jan 12, 2008

salexander867 said:
I am not sure how a true artist could take credit for this. This, to me, is like one of you selling a photo for an ad. Then I see the add and decide that I do not like the way you cropped the pic so I take a photo of your photo and crop it to the way I like. Then sell it as my own photo.

I would have done nothing artistic other than the crop. I didn't do the setup or determine exposure, etc.

Isn't 99% of taking a picture "cropping"? Read cropping as composition.

skieur · Jan 12, 2008

In Copyright Law, copying is defined as copying the complete work or a substantial part of a work.

If he copied less than a substantial part of the original copyrighted work, then he has not violated any law.

skieur

nossie · Jan 12, 2008

This just gave me a great idea for a theme... we should all go out and take photographs of bill posters in our town... and you never know we just might hit the big time for it.

Battou · Jan 12, 2008

O|||||||O said:
Does anyone know the relevant copyright laws? Is it legal because the ad was widely known? Because it is now no longer an ad, but art?

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

I am fairly certain both of these images originated in the US so these are the Copyright laws that apply. I am constantly reviewing that site for other reasons and actually know them rather well but, you will find your difinitive answers there, and if you cant you can ask for them and I am certain they will explain them.

O|||||||O said:
I just can't figure out what makes it OK (legally, ...to me it is not OK, morally). I just don't see myself "getting away with it" if I tried the same thing. Do copyrights expire eventually (I don't think so, but I don't know a whole lot about copyright law) - like a patent?

Yes copyrights do expire, Fifty years after death of original copyrightholder.

O|||||||O said:
Yeah, but isn't everything on here "publicly displayed" too? This forum may not have as large of an audience as a Marlboro ad, but it's not exactly inaccessible to the general public.

There is still a difference, here is an example real quick using one of my images that is perfectly legal (far from threemillion dollar type image but...)

fido dog said:

Now this is legal, The image belongs to fido dog despite my image being contained within, However fido dog is making no attempt at claiming my image or an exact duplicate as his own, only the photo that contains it. It prolly goes with out saying but, I doubt he is trying to make money off that shot but still, this image is copyright to him wile I retain the copyright on mine.

Printing out an image from the site does however constitute a copyright violation as it is an unautherised duplication and manipulation of an existing image.

Creating an image containing a copyrighted image is still technically creation. No I don't like the fact he is making money of someoneelses photo but laws are oftern not on the same page as moral standards.

Big Bully · Jan 13, 2008

Well the problem here is that everyone is looking at the moral situation here, where as he was looking at the business end. He found a nitch in the market and he decided to use it.
To get around a copyright all you have to do is change the product or image 25% and it is yours. So this Prince guy crops the image greatly, blows it up to somewhat gianormous, and therefore sells it as his. He consciously made that decision to create this "new" image, and then decided to sell it. So from the business end of the deal, this Prince guy was brilliant, and I wish I would have thought of it, or even known how to sell some of my stuff for millions of dollars.
But....
I also have a conscience and I am not sure I could actually do it, although the money would seriously be screaming my name.