Case study 6 : Patrick Cariou vs. Richard Prince (2000)

-
Image result for Patrick Cariou vs. Richard Prince


Case 
Richard Prince is an artist who has recently generated turmoil within the art world. The one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. Some people think that his work is not original given its use of photographic material produced by other artists. 
This case is about Prince used the artists Patrick Cariou photographs in a series and painting and other works. An exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Prince had never requested permission by Cariou to use his photographs in his artworks which sold for approximately 10 million. Cariou argued that it was not a fair use, but copyright infringement. 


Held 
The court ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou’s photographs were not significant enough to constitute a change in meaning — fair use. 
After this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince’s work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use. 

Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1)
The Copyright Act 1987 states that an infringement occurs when a person does something without the licence or permission or consent of the copyright owner.

The copyright in a work is infringed when a person who:
(i)not being the owner of the copyright 
(ii)without consent or license of the owner of the copyright,

Copyright Act 1987 Section 13(2)
Certain conduct will not be considered as infringement of copyright. This provision provide defences to any allegation of infringement. 

FAIR USE
Where a copyrighted material is used for for purposes of non-profit research, private study, criticism, review or the reporting of current events. If such use is public, then it must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the title of the work and its authorship.


Point of view 
I agree with the court’s final decision that Prince’s appropriations fall under Fair Use. “Appropriation art is, by now, a venerable tradition in modern art.” There were too much similar case to where Cariou went against Prince for copyright infringement. Hence, I believe that transformative art is now a trend in the society. 
New artists are only going to redesign the concept even further, just as artists have done so in history. In fact, people like to break the rules and create new rules. 
Our imagination represents our emotions, thoughts and relativity towards the world which merely meant for enjoyment towards its aesthetic values. However, people nowadays could not live without a little greed that they transform other’s work into theirs. To no surprise, artworks we can see around us today are of similar concept contains more innovation than creation. Creative works should always be original and not derivative in order to stand out and truly strive in the society.

References : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince

http://ncac.org/resource/significance-cariou-v-prince

https://www.americansuburbx.com/2015/07/patrick-cariou-v-richard-prince-et-al-the-appeal-verdict.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cases study 7 : Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury (1991)

-
Image
Case  In 1981, Queen and David Bowie released the song “Under Pressure”. The song reached number one on UK music charts.  In 1990, Vanilla Ice released his hit single “Ice Ice Baby” the beat the song was the same as “Under Pressure”. But Ice famously insisted that the two melodies are distinct because he added a beat between notes. A live version appears on the album Extremely Live, while a rap rock version appears on the album Hard to Swallow, under the title "Too Cold"  Queen and David Bowie sued the signer for sampling the beat to the song without permission or a license. Ice later claimed that this rationale was merely a joke. Representatives for Queen and Bowie weren't laughing and threatened a copyright infringement suit.  Interesting Facts ：Both songs, "Ice, Ice, Baby" and "Under Pressure" were number one hits. The song boosted the sales of the album which went to sell over 7 million copies. These songs were also...
Read more

Case Study 1 : Rogers v. Koons

-
Image
Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group ) About the Case  This case is about Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple (Jim Scanlon and his wife ) holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, the famous artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Jeff Koons asked his assistants to copy as much detail as possible from the photographs. The only changes made during the transition were larger noses on the puppies, blue fur, and the man and woman had flowers in their hair. The sculpture was named "String of Puppies" and became a success. Reportedly, Koons sold three of the sculptures for $367,000.  Jeff Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy...
Read more

Cases study 2 : Jeff Koons vs. Andrea Blanch ( 2006 )

-
Image
Case  A famous visual artist, Jeff Koons, made a collage using various photographs for an exhibit commissioned by the Guggenheim.  Koons is being accused for copying part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch, a fashion photographer.Blanch's photograph appeared in the fashion magazine Allure, and depicts a woman's legs reclining on a man's lap in an airplane cabin. Koons cropped and re-oriented the photo, before including it in a painted collage among other pairs of women's legs. Blanch bring the case to the court.  Held  The judge found Blanch did not have the copyright over the Gucci sandal therefore the only thing that could be copied was the females leg which could not be deemed original in order to be protected by copyright. The district court granted Koons holding that the use of Blanch's photograph in his collage constituted fair use, and not copyright infringement. Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that ...
Read more