fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

How Richard Prince Sells Other People’s Instagram Photos for $100,000

by 134 Comments

Money

If you were to take a screen shot of someone’s Instagram account and try selling it, two things would happen. The first is that you’d be told you’re violating the copyright of the photographer whose photo you’re selling, and secondly you’d be laughed at. Extensively.

It turns out, though, that if you’re famous enough you can take such a screen shot and not only bypass copyright but also make a fortune doing so.

The secret: slap some text on it.

Richard Prince has been using this method and some of his “artwork” is said to have been sold for $100,000.

 

This form of lazy “art” becomes even more infuriating when you realize that in addition to selling (if you’d say stealing, I’m not sure I’d disagree) photos that do not belong to him and without the knowledge or consent of the owners, Prince also removed the accompanying captions.

As Pidgin Doll stated on their Facebook page, regarding a photo where a person dressed as her doll and was photographed alongside it, “unfortunately the caption, credits, and context have been extracted and neither of us alerted to this image being used in this way”.

Below is one of the photos Prince sold as his own on which Prince based one of his pieces:

In order to turn the photo into his own work, Prince removed the caption and added a comment beneath existing comments stating “No Cure, No Pay…” and inserted an emoji.

The owner of the photo, Doe Deere, uploaded a photo of Prince’s “inspired” work with the following message:

“Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it!”

That’s right; he sold her photo for as much as $90,000 without Deere’s knowledge, consent or offering her any kind of compensation.

I’m not sure who would buy such a print and why on Earth they’d pay so much money for it, but I guess that’s a whole other discussion.

Prince has been ‘rephotographing’ since 1975, and has been taken to court in the past after a French photographer claimed 35 of his images were lifted by the lazy “artist”.

In 2011 a US District judge ruled against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, which displayed the photos, stating that Prince’s use of the images did not fall under fair use. A US Court of Appeals, however, mostly reversed the ruling two years later, stating that the majority of the works were transformative while a lower court was to review the other works.

A settlement was finally reached in 2014, leaving the legality of Prince’s work and the legal steps available to those such as Doe Deere uncertain.

Perhaps this was the reason why Prince’s exhibition of the Instagram photos was originally displayed in the closed-off VIP section of the Gagosian Gallery, with no public exhibitions announced.

According to the New York Post the works with his comments, which are “sometimes just emojis”, included photos from the feeds of celebrities such as Pamela Anderson and Kate Moss, and sold for up to $100,000.

Prince is obviously not hiding his exhibition any longer as it was just displayed at Frieze Week, New York’s second annual art fair week, and as stated above, his work (and I use both terms loosely) were a financial success.

But, while the courts might not have offered a decisive opinion on Prince’s methods, others were more outspoken regarding his 65” by 48” canvas prints.

In an article titled “Richard Prince Sucks”, Paddy Johnson of artnet news wrote about Prince’s exhibition and stated that “the most remarkable feature of the show is that the printouts are reflected perfectly in Gagosian’s shiny floor. Thin offerings for anyone who is in possession of a brain”.

Johnson also mentioned that the New Yorker’s Peter Schjeldahl wrote about the exhibition and summed it up saying it made him wish he were dead.

Other critics have taken to Twitter, with the comments below being just a fraction of the tweets sent to Prince:

“People like you give contemporary art a bad name and it bums me out”

“In case you haven’t figured it out by the swarm of comments, taking someone’s Instagram photo enlarging it and slapping it on some canvas is not “Modern Art””

“”Theft: not art.”

“This isn’t art, thief.”

For your reading pleasure, I’m sharing a couple of tweets with additional comments:

Gagosian Gallery, on the other hand, describe Prince quite differently in his artist bio:

“Mining images from mass media, advertising and entertainment since the late seventies, Prince has redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura.”

Gagosian Gallery, you say that like it’s a good thing? Mostly, I’d say he redefined the limit of how one can take another person’s work and sell it off as his own. Anyway, the bio goes on:

“Applying his understanding of the complex transactions of representation to the making of art, he evolved a unique signature filled with echoes of other signatures yet that is unquestionably his own.”

Umm… Judging by the comments above, I’m not so sure about the “unquestionably his own” part…

I agree that some level of insipration and “borrowing” should be allowed, but there needs to be a line somewhere.

I’m no legal expert, and definitely not an art connoisseur, but it seems to me that Richard Prince is so far past that line that he’s closer to it from the other side.

Another issue is the fact that these prints are selling for ridiculous amounts of money. It’s one thing to justify lifting a bunch of photos belonging to other people “in the name of art”, but it’s a whole nother thing to make millions off of it.

We’ve approached the Gagosian Gallery for a response and will update as soon as we hear from them.

 

 

[via Pidgin Doll | Lead Image: Tracy O | Thanks for the tip, Simon!]

Related posts:

ten famous landmarks you're not allowed to photograph jp danko toronto commercial advertising editorial photographer10 Famous Landmarks You’re Not Allowed to Photograph for Commercial Use Richard Prince Gets a Taste of His Own Medicine; $90,000 Prints offered for $90 Richard Prince Finally Sued for Ripping Off an Instagram Photo Vanessa Hudgens Slammed For Posting Viral Tea-Tossing Photo on Instagram without Credit

About Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel.

When he isn't waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses.

You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

  • Well he prices them and accepts the money. How he lives with himself is the question.

  • My question is – who the he!! has the money to pay that much for a photo like that…people need to find better ways to spend their money…geez

  • Renato Murakami

    Considering the abnormal reversal that has happened before, I think victims should join for a class action lawsuit. Richard probably has some leverage regarding copyright law since he makes a point on abusing it so much.

    • hussey

      And how are they victimized? That’s why they don’t sue, because to sue you have to show damages.

      • catlett

        I can’t tell from your responses if you are merely ignorant or are just stupid but again you are wrong. See section § 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

        Someone violating a copyright has automatically statutorily damaged the copyright owner.

        • hussey

          Statutory DAMAGES have to be proven as well.

          • catlett

            Saying it more times doesn’t make you right. It just exposes your ignorance. You are either completely disingenuous or are ignorant to the difference between actual (compensatory) damages and statutory damages. Statutory damages are automatic and set by law. Here is a reference though I am sure you don’t want to know the real answer. https://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-copyright.html#pq6

            I’m going to take a wild guess here and bet that you have been stealing and altering other people’s work and want to believe that you aren’t potentially lined up for a suit. I SO hope they catch you and nail you to the wall.

          • hussey

            You’re missing my point that they still have to be proven. Perhaps I should have said it with a different emphasis. Statutory damages have to be PROVEN as well.

          • hussey

            In other words, what you’re addressing is the AMOUNT of damages, or what the damages are worth. All that is after infringement has been proven.

          • catlett

            Here is a dumbed down explanation that even you should be able to understand.

            http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-infringement-how-damages-determined.html

      • Me, Myself and I

        Not if you registered you work first then you go for statutory damages.

        • hussey

          You still have to have been infringed, which must be proven. In this case there is no infringement.

          • Me, Myself and I

            You are correct, you need to prove there is infrigement. The problem is that earlier you said you had to prove damages not infringment. Statutory damages.

            You;ve swuitched the wording from the original comment we are talking about. You originally said:

            “Statutory DAMAGES have to be proven as well.”
            source: hussey

            I need to prove infringement to get statutory damages. I don’t need to prove statutory damages.

            I think that’s what’s causing some confusion in this side thread of ours.

          • hussey

            Yes, you still need to prove it for both. You can’t get statutory damages if you weren’t damaged period. You seem to think that what you can ask for in court has any bearing proving infringement.

          • Me, Myself and I

            Statutory damages are a damage award in civil law, in which the amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff.

            So all I need to do is prove that there was infringement. That’s the whole point.

    • 10songsblog

      Atually he just has shitloads of money for good (and seedy) lawyers. No no I say wwe take Price himself and “transform him” (Ala Boston/NY mafia). I noticed the people he steals from by in large have very little recourse for legal action. If this guy had REAL balls and ideas he try with some well know Disney images and ee how appropriation law works for him then.

  • The thing is, if the medium were film, music or perhaps a painting or a sculpture, no question, what he’s doing would be considered wrong and would be sued beyond doubt. But for some reason, because it’s photography, that means it’s somehow a gray area. It’s something that is just getting away from us and trying to control it is almost impossible.

  • Real art is dead :(

    • Daniel Shortt

      nope, he found it, then stole it.

  • The thing is.. his “art” don’t worth shit. But by buying them with ridiculous amount of money, puts him on the headlines, and makes him famous. And you know what happens to famous people? Their shit worth money… it’s not art, it’s manipulative investment.

  • So, is he using this to launder money?

    How come nobody can win definitively in court?

    Ansel Adams, here I come. All I need is my trusty emoji.

    • 10songsblog

      Meh- Ansel Adams is passe do something related to Disney works and make it meta-meta-meta…

  • Anonymous

    I wish someone could sue the hell out of him AND the galleries. If we could send the right message to galleries, they might stop handling junk like this.

  • Steve

    What a dirt bag… If more people would stand up for their rights, these thieves wouldn’t be so tempted to steal images.

  • Adrian Fowler

  • Tiffany Mueller

    I find it especially rich how the gallery’s website specifically says in regards to “Prince’s” work: “All images are subject to copyright. Gallery approval must be granted prior to reproduction.”

    Oh the irony.

    https://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/richard-prince–september-19-2014

    • If you want to copy any of his work without the hassle of getting permission just say you’re appropriating it! ;)

      • Tiffany Mueller

        I just asked the gallery how they could justify doing business with this guy. I’m not holding my breath for a response, but I also suggested they apologize to the real photographers–which really is the least they could do.

      • Marc W.

        So, would going and taking a photograph of his posted “art” and selling it be alright?

        • Alanna Robelia

          Someone should print copies of his stolen works en masse and give the proceeds to the original photographers.

          • QuestioningKat

            They did and are selling their work at 99.9% of the original cost at $90.

        • E-Nonymouse A

          By the way the mechanism is outlined, you could say add some bullsh– comment on a reposted work and then sell it as your own, that seems to be how he is able to bypass the law.
          Never mind the fact that copyrights prohibit derivative works, if you were to attempt this with any other medium than still images i’d bet you would end up in a heated court battle and the judge would not be sympathetic about it.

          • hussey

            I don’t think the original works in question generate any rage or commentary on social aspects of life, therefore this work isn’t derivative. Make sense? So many people here are getting hung up on the basic terms that they really don’t understand, like “art” and “copyright.” Sorry, but it’s true.

          • catlett

            Your point is completely irrelevant. The original photographer owns the copyright on the image. Making his own commentary is, in fact derivative. Make sense? Didn’t think so because you clearly don’t understand what a copyright means. Sorry but it’s true.

          • hussey

            Not true. You need to look up fair use.

          • catlett

            Again … wrong. Fair use is applied for news organizations, school use, etc. when the person using the work is not making money from it. Are you really this dumb?

          • hussey

            You are not correct. Yes, fair use is typically used in those examples, but there is much more to it than that. And making money is not a factor in any of it.

          • James Jenkins

            fair use also usually relates as mentioned to using a bit, you should not be able to tell instantly it is the same photo with a tiny alteration thats why artist have successfully sued the asshole in the past. If he split the money with the people then they would be less upset even 10% but he does not even ask thier permission to use it and then profits after a tiny amount of work. You can;t do this in your school essay why should you make a profit from it

          • hussey

            That is not true either. Fair use can use it in its entirety. Artists have UNsuccessfully sued him in the past. Profits have no bearing on this issue. And I’m pretty sure school essays are one place you CAN do this, if the sources are referenced, not that that has any bearing either.

          • James Jenkins

            It’s not leagal to copy and past with minor alterations someone elses words in to your essays in particular when you do not mention them as this dick does not
            I have seen artist shunned by the community for tracing which is what this arsehole does, they sold art traced without permission and where punished for it.
            What he does is not new, it is not intelligent ad it is nit redefining the sense of ownership. It is theft pure and simple, a talentless immoral scum bag stealing art and trying to use loopholes to make a profit, Fair use does not allow you to make a profit.
            The problem is art buffs and rich people, thier so obsessed with being intelectual and hard to understand they have to make out that anything can be art and their excuse is you just don’t understand it, and if one says it is art the others have to agree, because then they seem as deep as the others.
            People buy it not because it is insightful but because they get an ego boost owning something that others do not.
            I have seen swords and armour of kings that are more art than this, intricate engravings, skill few smiths can match, unique pieces that take hundreds eve thousands of hours to make by hand. Something you could look at for hours and never see the full detail of, and with originals a history and a story, who was this person what did they do.
            But changing the text on a photo someone else took and calling it art? No it is no more art than a urinal or a unmade bed. I*t is a disgrace, those that allow it in their gallery or to hang on their wall should be ashamed in particular galleries that then claim copyright for things on display when it is such blatant theft.
            I am sure your a troll looking to get a rise from people for no one is as stupid as this, but honestly don’t degrade yourself by supporting this chap. Even in his comments on social media he is shown to be an arse

          • hussey

            I think you’ve revealed yourself to be someone who thinks art is nothing more than pretty pictures, and that the best art is the art that looks like the artist put the most work into it.

            Do you really think another oil painting of a bowl of fruit is more original?

            Is the best novel the one where the author used the biggest words?

            PS. fair use claims have nothing to do with profit or lack thereof. The issues would be the same even if he was paying people to take his art.

          • James Jenkins

            I have had enough of conversing with someone who is ether a accomplished troll, an imbecile or an egocentric self important arse who genuinely believes that you can take meaning from this mans so called art

          • hussey

            The simple fact that you’ve gotten so worked up about this proves that it has some merit, does it not? You don’t have to find meaning in art. Just asking the right questions is enough.

          • 10songsblog

            I’d like to see him do that with ANY Disney related image.

        • Mike James Rigby

          i’m commenting then appropriating this as my art as we speak, lol (sarcasm)

    • 10songsblog

      Meh just print it off your own computer and sell it on Ebay as a hand-signed Price. They can’t really argue because you said “hand-signed” not hand-signed by the artist.

  • Ralph Hightower

    Rephotograph Richard Prince’s rephotographs and sell them for double the money!

  • Itsamee

    One of these artists that he stole from should steal it back. Take a picture of it and put an equally pretentious and uninspired caption to it than go sell THAT as “art”.

  • Wtf???

  • gtvone

    You’re welcome, my fine feathered friend… I’m off to sell some of his artwo… oh, no, wait…

  • John MacPherson

    Tiffany – thinking about it, as the only thing ‘original’ is the Prince text, you simply copy the Gagosian image, blank out the Prince text in a red highlighter pen to completely hide it, and circle the © Gagosian text in yellow highlighter and add the words “Why?”. Then get the written permission of the original image owner (the creator) to actually use the image, and plaster the result everywhere as legitimate and legal transformative art. What could go wrong? You’ve not reproduced Prince’s only ‘original’ addition – the text – and afaik the words © Gagosian are not in themselves copyrighted, and the added text you’ve put on plus the obvious removal of the Prince words make it, the whole, transformative. Winner!

    • willeyeam

      haha that’s a hilarious way to stick it to him.
      I wouldn’t worry about the copyright symbol, but the name of the gallery… perhaps.
      Prince didn’t show it in the series but the bottom of the IG page showed the copyright and name, and it applied to the parts he copied, too. Betcha IG will go after him before the users, really. All those little icons, copyrighted. Probably the font, too! Maybe the gallery will taste the lash as well, who knows?

      • E-Nonymouse A

        gagosian could nail you for trademark infringement I guess, or at least make feeble attempts at it.

    • Rick

      Take his derivative work, and add “free of charge” and a few emojii’s and hand out large prints of it outside the gallery.

  • Fill a DMCA take down for the lulz

  • Shawn

    This man is a thief, pure and simple, and any gallery that allows him to display his stolen goods is aiding and abetting in the theft and no better than him.

    • Breezanemom

      Anyone buying his “art” is just as guilty as he is! After all, if there weren’t a market for it, he wouldn’t be out there.

      • 10songsblog

        Frankly as an artist I wouldn’t want anyone who bought his “art” to get anywhere near my work even if they paid $90,000. This is what the wealthy spend their extra cash on while museum and institution fall due to lack of funding. Ugh.

  • And all this time I have been working and shooting when I just can copy others work instead.

  • here’s the facebook post about the exhibition
    https://goo.gl/D1n7rJ

  • Daniel Shortt

    What a special heap of shit that guy is!

  • I wouldn’t call talking someone else’s photo and enlarging, art. Just because it’s hanging on a wall doesn’t mean a thing. Not to mention he has stolen the images with no permission to use them.

    • hussey

      Sometimes it means everything. Duchamp hung up a mass produced urinal and called it art, and art historians have called it one of the greatest works of the last hundred years.

      • 10songsblog

        Yes but he had the audacity to sign it and to do it first. And he is Duchamp, not a one trick pony. This guy is no revolutionary Dadaist he’s done the same cliche hack shtick his whole career basically just rehashing Duchamp.

        I appreciate th guy more if he had real balls and did his hacky shtick with some well know Disney images. That would be different and real comment of copyright and apparition taking on the House of Mouse. But nope he generally picks subject who have no real plausible or financial way of defending themselves in court (like a pedophile grooming his victims) save for Taylor Swift and we know how that ended.

        • hussey

          But it’s not commentary on disney imagery (That’s already been done a million times). Nor is it a pure comment on copyright.

  • mike

    Remember, copyright law does not apply to corporations or the famous. It is not here to protect us plebs.

    • hussey

      He’s “copied” some quite famous photographers actually.

  • PoxG

    This would be a great performance piece if the original photographers of these came to the gallery and removed/destroyed/cut from the walls the pieces, leaving nothing but Prince’s comment, in an performance art piece called “Reclaiming”.

    • Pedro Frederico

      That sounds a good idea if one weren’t to believe a parasitic type like Prince wouldn’t then sell the shredded off artwork as his own at an even higher price.

      • PoxG

        But at least then the work would actually be his own, that being his random comments upon the original image, and not this broad definition of appropriated art that he uses that does little to nothing in the way of recontextualizing the original work…Prince’s appropriation of Patrick Cariou’s work had more artistic merit than this series…imho

        • Crimson Hikari

          Actually, he’d still be appropriating. He wouldn’t have caused said shredded artwork, therefore he’d still be making money off someone else’s work.

          • hussey

            Making money has no bearing on the issue, but i suspect it’s one of the big reasons why some are so worked up against it.

    • Eddie Wienbauer

      Good point.BUT the gallery would probably sue and win. Sadly

  • hussey

    The people raging about this don’t really understand art. The more you rage, the more you prove that it IS original art very much separate from the original Instagram work.

    • tallulah13

      That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

      • hussey

        Oh yeah, why do you think that? Care to argue actual points?

        • Ellavent

          If you go steal someone’s painting from their house, color yellow dots on it, then put it up on craigslist for sale, it doesn’t matter if it’s art. It really doesn’t.

          What matters is that it was directly stolen from another person who previously possessed the image and now has less control over that image than Richard Prince. That could harm the people involved as they are now getting wider exposure than they may have wanted.

          Are any of the people in the photos underage? If so, that would also be a pretty large problem.

          • hussey

            Literally everything you said here is wrong.

            Copyright isn’t about possession. And even if it were, Prince’s efforts of printing them out for a gallery don’t lose control more than the PUBLIC instagram postings.

            Being underage gives you no special rights on anything to do with these cases. The link with Brooke Shields was about public indecency; nothing to do with this. Also, UK laws might not compare to USA.

            And as far as yellow dots, that made me think of Baldessari (a more famous artist, at least up til now, than Prince. And probably the inspiration for a lot of Prince’s work): https://eleonorebonnet.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/john-baldessari/

          • Ellavent

            Literally everything you said here is wrong.

            Displaying sexualized content (which Prince clearly hoped to sexualized these women) of an unaware underage person is illegal. It matters if they are underage.

            Prince still harms them by trying to profit off of people’s likenesses. In photography, you need model consent forms.

          • hussey

            Ellavent, your post was removed, but I’m going to respond to address the last few misinterpretations you posted:

            No. No. No.

            First of all, the Brooke Shields photograph wasn’t his. The courts have ruled on those specific pictures. Here is more info than you probably want:
            search for “iconicphotos brooke-shields-by-gary-gross” I won’t link directly because the moderators probably don’t want me to.

            Note: It does not matter if you’re underage, unless you’re talking about child pornography laws, which is a separate issue from even the Brooke Shields pics. The only difference for underage people, is that your parents would have to sign any contracts on your behalf instead of you. You don’t have any more or less rights than full adults when it comes to privacy, publicity, or defamation.

            Profiting isn’t the issue. Someone else making money in and of itself isn’t showing harm to you.

          • 10songsblog

            I think what most people are pissed about aside from this asshat getting rich is that he took the photos without permission and largely from people who he knew would have knew real legal recourse to sue him.

            I’d even go so far as to argue he included Taylor Swift and a few other celebrities merely to make it look like he wasn’t just stealing from people who couldn’t defend themselves. Of course Swift’s camp has already dealt with him because they have the funds to do so. Most of these other victims do not and he knows it.

            To me it is no better than stealing photographs to use on porn site or dating sites. Copyright and fair use aside and making trans-formative art aside from an ethical standpoint I think the guy is a grade A choice cut douche-bag and I think that most comments are about him being a douche-bag for not asking for permission.

            I know I’d be pissed if somebody used my work without my permission and made a profit.

            I’d like to see him pull the same stunt with Disney images and see how far he gets.

          • hussey

            I’m still hearing some grumblings that have no bearing on the issue. Like “he’s making a profit!”

            And I don’t think he’s targeting people who have no recourse. He’s “targeted” (not that I think that is the right word at all either) some pretty big names.

          • hussey

            You’re also ignoring the fact that a lot of the images weren’t posted by the original content creators, and that the instagram feeds are in fact a public space. Prince is, in essence, doing nothing more than documenting a public street like Garry Winogrand or Cartier-Bresson did back in the day!

        • Me, Myself and I

          We aren’t raging about the message or the expression … we are raging about the apparent illegality of the act and the complete and utter lack or morals and respect this man has for his fellow artists.

          The art itself is irrelevant to our discussion, it is how he acquired the art or in his words “created” it that is the issue.

          What’s next? He’ll steal a Ferrari from the street lay a decal emoji on the hood and won;t be charged with theft?

          • hussey

            Your rage IS the art. You are the sheep that this is about. Nothing is being taken from the original instagram posters.

    • Crimson Hikari

      It isn’t original though. It is an enlarged screenshot from Instagram, with a 90,000 dollar price tag. There is nothing original about a screenshot of someone else’s work. It’s on par with the pieces of a polaroid with a comment written on the bottom, or the photos with something written on a post-it and plastered on someone’s forehead.

      Also, considering he is selling someone else’s physical image for profit, he should require model release forms.

      • hussey

        It IS original. Duchamp used a mass produced urinal (and nothing else but a fake signature!) and it is considered one of the greatest works of the last hundred years!

        Profit has no bearing on the issue, even the model release issue (one is not needed).

        Each of the pieces to this puzzle needs to be broken down and addressed separately. People unfamiliar with the art world hear the story and assume there must be something wrong. He’s making $90k per piece? There must be something shady.
        But there isn’t.

        • Crimson Hikari

          It’s not the making $90,000 that is the issue. It’s the fact that he’s using other people’s photos with a single comment added to make himself money.
          Art is subjective, but there are limits.

          • hussey

            So you’re admitting that it is the fact that he is making money that you take issue with? How would you feel if they were free?

            (ps. making money has no bearing on these issues)

          • Crimson Hikari

            Even if they were free prints, I still think it’s wrong to share other people’s images as prints without even asking them beforehand. For your own personal use (eg. Putting on a pin-board at home as inspiration or as part of an example in a photography project), I don’t see a problem because you’re not publicly claiming it’s your own work.

            I still don’t see this as art. The original images could potentially be, depending on the image. But this (taking someone else’s work and adding a comment) is not.

          • hussey

            I don’t see how the critics such as yourself are saying he’s “claiming it’s his own work”?

          • Crimson Hikari

            He’s taken the image from someone else, added a comment, and it’s now in a gallery under HIS name, with the only reference to the person who did the work being the username under the image. He is being credited with the ‘work’, and he took the images without the permission of the person who put it up there.

            Originality is hard to come by, but like I said, it’s no more original than writing a comment on the front of a polaroid or writing a comment on your forehead on a post-it and taking a picture.

            All this is proof of is that some idiots with too much money will buy literally anything that is expensive if it has a ‘famous’ name on it, whether or not the ‘artist’ has done the work themselves, and even if you could get the same thing for free somewhere else.

  • Hagbard Celine

    I’d fuck that guy in the ass with a crowbar if I found he used an image of me for his “art”.

    • Elad

      Don’t forget to take a pic and post it on Instagram.

      • Hagbard Celine

        No way man! He’d steal it and make MORE money and then he’d use it to sue me!

  • CSC

    This is an investment thing, not an art thing. Look up the Greater Fool Theory. It is kinda sad that anyone falls for it. This is like some sick parallel universe to the way art as a business works for the other 99.9% of people in the arts industry.

  • Indigo_LeoFan

    We should all be legally allowed to take “his” work, alter it very slightly (or not at all), then sell it for big bucks. I mean fair is fair.

  • Rob

    I think I’ll go out and “redefine the ownership” of my neighbor’s Porsche. I hope the cops “get” art.

  • mtnrunner2

    “Prince has redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura.” > So sayeth Joseph Stalin.

  • scottwarmuth

    I created and posted my own Instagram art using Richard Prince’s Instagram feed as source material a year ago. The guy didn’t sue me once. In fact, he even retweeted some of my Tweets. Richard Prince seems like a swell guy to me. Vive le vol! https://twitter.com/scottwarmuth1/status/472755676159414272

  • Joseph Snow

    I want to jump on the “this is the work of the devil” bandwagon, but I am torn on this for 2 reasons:

    Not specific to this particular situation: I do not like the nature of Richard Prince’s work. At the same time I am not sure any of us have evaluated enough facts nor the intent of our copyright laws to go to his front door with torches and pitchforks. Did Patrick Cariou, who sued Richard Prince for copyright infringement, pay the subjects of his photos for their contribution to his art as models, or is taking a photo of a subject enough of a derivative to grant royalty free usage of someone’s image?

    Specific to this particular situation: https://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/

    “you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service”

    “you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Service or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content”

    Uploading content to Instagram grants them the unlimited ability to make a profit off of your content in exchange for use of their platform for promotion. If in adding content to Instagram users demanded approval before their content could be used I could justify the claim that Richard Price violated the intention of the user in making this content public, but based on these users willingness to blindly grant their rights to this content for promotion I can’t justify in this case that the original content creators are being “cheated.”

    • tallulah13

      Unless Richard Prince has permission from instagram, he’s still breaking the law.

      • Joseph Snow

        Well, no, unfortunately that is not true. He is making “derivative works,” purposefully flirting with the line for the media attention. Someone can claim that he broke the law and file a court case, which wouldn’t be the first for Mr. Prince. He has lost some cases in the past because of this, but has won more. The result has made him a multi-millionaire. If you have ever dealt with our legal system you will know that the courts favor the wealthy. The cost in defending something like a copyright is almost unbelievable – definitely outside of the realm of most people. So, as much as his “work” angers me for what I perceive as its lack of thought and originality, I also understand that he hasn’t blatantly violated copyright law – he isn’t printing and selling exactly the content from Instagram. Because of this it would be financially risky to try to take legal action against him as a hopeful solution, so articles like this do nothing to bring about the world I would like (where Mr. Prince’s work is worthless) because all they do is raise his profile within the group of consumers currently willing to pay for his work. The only way to beat this bully is with the silent treatment.

    • catlett

      Richard Prince is not Instagram. Instagram’s copy rights do not extend to people who view the photos on Instagram.

      • Joseph Snow

        I understand copyright law. I also understand trademark law. I am not an expert in either, but I understand them enough to be dangerous. They are different but there are similarities in their logic to protect creators. In trademark law their is “naked licensing,” which means the trademark licensor fails to adequately control the quality of the product being created under their issued license and because of that their trademark is considered void. This logic is the logic I am associating in my original second point, which (a sliver of) is the only aspect of my comment that you addressed. By uploading anything to Instagram a user is giving Instagram what equates to a naked license but for their copyright. Instagram has the right to take any users uploaded content and put it next to a photo of Hitler and add a comment linking the two favorably, including the creators username, and the user cannot do anything to prevent that. I am saying, as someone who refuses to post content to sites like Instagram and Facebook because of these permissions, if a user is willing to give Instagram that blind right to use their work that I cannot understand all of the rabble rousing happening because of what Mr. Prince did because obviously these artists did not care how their art was used.

        Secondly, and returning to the first of my original points since we have provided further detail into the second, in past instances Mr. Prince’s work has been deemed by courts to sometimes be infringing of copyright and other times not to be infringing. He has made a great deal of money from the publicity generated by doing just this, which is part of the irony of every article written about this instance since all it will do is increase the value of his stock. That being the case, I would venture to guess that he knows copyright law better than the both of us combined, and I bet he knows just how much he needs to edit these pieces to make them “his own,” making it so that he is not in violation of Instagram or the user’s copyrights.

        To bring my argument full circle…since Mr. Prince most likely understands the law I assume he chose Instagram because it is a household name and because it will be hard for content creators to argue that his use violated the extent to which they desired their work to be protected from profit by a 3rd party. With that being the case, 1) anyone even speaking of this instance in belief that being upset will correct the perceived problem isn’t thinking straight.

        Anyway, I hope this helps you and others to understand my point more clearly.

        • catlett

          Trademark law is irrelevant. The works most certainly weren’t trademarked. Not sure how to put this but your sentences above seem to go somewhat in circles and I am not inclined to spend any time trying to untangle them.

          The fact is that there are statutory damages associated with copyright violation. Another fact is that we already know Mr. Prince used other people’s material without attaining their copyright permission and therefore violated it. The only way this could be skirted is if Instagram has signed, transferable copyright which they have implicitly granted to him. The thief may be making enough money that they don’t care and may just assume most people won’t go after him but damages are irrelevant with regard to a statutory claim.

  • this guy is a complete asshole,but who looks at screenshots of obviously not his instagrams and thinks it’s worth displaying? and who the fuck buys this crap?

  • Ferdinand Prinz

    Isn’t it mind-twisting how blindly elitist the art world has
    become? Steal young artists’ work; stamp it with a reputable artist name and
    gallery; and sell it for millions as THE new status symbol. What once was a
    society of expression, intellect and authenticity has become one that is now
    limited to greediness for prestige, cocktail parties and money. Surely, new
    media such as Instagram should be a gateway to democratize the consumption and
    ownership of art. Instead, it is being abused to affect the opposite.

    My name is Ferdinand Prinz, and Richard and me do not only
    share the same surname. I am also selling Instagram photography – but with a
    twist. At Post Collective (.com), we support aspiring Instagramers over 20k
    followers, and give them a platform to showcase, produce and distribute their
    work. In turn, we provide fans of all ages with affordable, but gallery-quality
    photography prints, often their first pieces of art. We believe it is all about
    making art accessible. So if you’re also fed up with Richard Prince, Larry
    Gagosian and co, please come and support the real artists on Instagram at @postcollective.
    <3

  • yourbiased pleasestop

    Instagram tells you that your photos do not belong to you once you post them to Instagram. just because this guy is smarter than all of you is no reason to be upset. you all look like chumps. If you were smart, you would just put your photos on canvas yourselves instead of putting them out there for the world to copy. This was an issue when instagram first gained popularity and now the effects are being felt. It may seem ‘unfair’ but its your mistake to use instagram to showcase your best work. but if you’re a real artist, you can always make more;)

    • Kriztoper

      Rights
      Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 (“Sharing of Your Information”), 4 (“How We Store Your Information”), and 5 (“Your Choices About Your Information”). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.

      • Kriztoper

        Reporting Copyright and Other IP Violations
        We respect other people’s rights, and expect you to do the same.
        We provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more about how to report claims of intellectual property infringement, visit:https://help.instagram.com/customer/portal/articles/270501
        If you repeatedly infringe other people’s intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.

    • alastairmoore

      No, they don’t tell you this. You may believe the reports that say that you lose ownership of your photographs when you upload them but that is not correct in the slightest. You should find someone who understands licenses and terms and conditions to explain it to you.

    • KevinHodgson

      This has nothing to do with Instagram’s terms of service. The particular case sited in the article where he won a copyright infringement case on “Fair Use” grounds, the judge ruled that some of the pieces were “Sufficiently Transformative” in nature to constitute a new work, however a number of them were not. These particular Instagram photos have not been tested in a copyright infringement suit yet (as far as I’m aware).
      Fair Use is an affirmative defense against a charge of copyright infringement, it is not a blanket “get out of jail” ruling, and the former suit only applied to those particular pieces. One of the copyright holders of one of the Instagram images would have to sue him, and he could argue a Fair Use right to the images again, but a judgement would have to make made on those particular works, and that judgement wouldn’t apply to any others.

  • vanhares

    Yes, people are discussing his “work,” but not in the way any working, all-consumed artist would prefer. The discussion isn’t about quality, but rather how embarrassingly lazy he is.

    He seems to have turned Edison’s famous quote on its head: 99 percent inspiration and one percent perspiration (perspiration here meaning typing “Juno”-esque gibberish and pressing the green button on a giant printer).

    Jackass.

    • 10songsblog

      True the comments on-line are about lazy he is. But sadly most of the people who see his show won’t have any idea how it went down. And even more sad is most people don’t care, certainly not anyone paying $90,000 for his name.

  • Terry Montimore

    Gagosian Gallery, to me, is the real villain for accepting theft as something they make half the profits on and deeming this “art”. If they had the balls to deny this bullshit, Price would just have a stack of stolen instagram pics sitting in his living room and no one would care. Shame on them… we should be writing to and criticizing them instead of Price, since they are the ones who actually make this happen.

  • Remy Schrader

    “It’s one thing to justify lifting a bunch of photos belonging to other people “in the name of art”, but it’s a whole nother thing to make millions off of it.”
    No, it’s not. The motivation for use has zero bearing on the legal right for use — unless enumerated as a list of permissible uses in a contract between two parties. But in this case, with no agreement, what Prince is doing is either legal or it it’s not.
    I think what he’s doing serves as a nice bucket of ice water in the digital face: just because you think you own something doesn’t mean that other individuals, the Terms of Service for the platform or even our horribly misanthrope copyright law will agree with you.
    Posting on social media isn’t “sharing”;
    it’s giving-away.

    • QuestioningKat

      Yes a big wake up call! I’ve learned that reading Terms of Service and other info, usually ignored, is crucial. A free drawing app may state that you give up your copyright – seriously.

  • There’s got to be a way for him to be stopped. I’d like to see someone go to the gallery, compile a visual list of every image in this show and then post it via social media so everyone who uses Instagram can see if he’s stolen their imagery.

  • What most annoying and depressing is that there is a market for this crap. If no one offered to buy this stuff, he wouldn’t be doing it. So the real bad guys are those who will pay $90K for one of these prints. More indication that the art market is sick.

  • How come this man isn’t in jail? Does he pay off the court?

  • Arthur Rimbaud

    if it was my photo i wouldn’t seek legal recourse.i would however have him hunted down,brought to me whereupon i would use dull surgeons tools to remove his arms,legs ,eyes,and manhood and then cauterize the wounds with an acetylene torch prior to dropping him out the door of my vehicle on a busy stretch of pch and watch him try to waddle his funny little torso out of traffic before inevitable splatter. naturally filming each step of his aesthetic transformation for future artistic endeavors. my gallery series would be entitled ‘karma castrato’

  • Mitch Pantharen

    People should learn to read the TERMS OF SERVICE before they upload photos to a Social media site, and use a WATERMARK. When something like this happens, if they haven’t taken means to protect their art, then they only have one person to blame: themself. The “Thief” isn’t doing anything illegal, if you haven’t protected your art.

    • Matthew Trevor

      And it’s not robbery if you don’t lock your front door? That’s ridiculous.

  • AlyZen Moonshadow

    Shame on the Gagosian Gallery for stooping so low! Business must be really bad for it to have to resort to showing off stolen property!!

  • Michael Ziming Ouyang

    If Instagram really wanted to let its users know they were being protected, they would sue Prince on the basis of using their fonts and other recognizable service marks (as they say in their own copyright/terms of use) and redistribute the funds obtained.

  • Me, Myself and I

    “Prince has redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura.”

    I wasn’t aware that he had the power to change the law.

  • Interested Observer

    If I was in 1 of these prints & I found out who bought it, would I be breaking any law if I went to their home & removed it? I think not.

  • QuestioningKat

    This incident is making me rethink posting my drawings and paintings online especially with Instagram. With These copyright loopholes, could someone take a drawn image and put it on a product or use it depending on where it is posted? are photos only vulnerable or all art?

  • Beni Maroc Mikkelsen

    Am I the only one who is wondering? How did he take screenshots of (or steal) other peoples Instagram photos and printed them as large format artwork – in high resolution. The maximum pixel of a posted instagram photo is 1024×1024. Quality prints of these would be around 5″ x 5″.

    Anyone who can crack this?

  • 10songsblog

    It seems to me form the comments here and elsewhere that most of the anger isn’t about the “art” or even the fact that this asshat getting
    rich. It is the fact that he took the photos without permission and changed them without permission. Photo that came largely from
    people who he knew would have knew real legal recourse to sue him.

    I’d
    even go so far as to argue he included Taylor Swift and a few other
    celebrities merely to make it look like he wasn’t just stealing from
    people who couldn’t defend themselves. Of course Swift’s camp has
    already dealt with him because they have the funds to do so. Most of
    these other victims do not and he knows it.

    To me it is no better
    than stealing photographs to use on porn site or dating sites.
    Copyright and fair use aside and making trans-formative art aside from
    an ethical standpoint I think the guy is a grade A choice cut douche-bag
    and I think that most comments are about him being a douche-bag for not
    asking for permission.

    I’d have more respect for his aprppriation and fair use argument if he tried this stunt with more well know works like say ANY image from Disney. That would be a reall interesting comment of fair use, public domain, copyright, and apparition because of the way Disney cracks down on (or tries to) any image of any kind that features their characters, no matter how altered they may get.

    And also I know I’d be pissed if somebody used my visual artwork without my permission and made a profit and shared NONE of the royalties.

  • Gina145

    I don’t think I’d sue because the legal expenses are too high and I don’t think I could take the stress, but I certainly hope that somebody else does.

  • Garrett Mobley

    So what people are saying is I can take a screen shot of his screen shot with his text as part of the screen shot, add my own text to his text and then sell the same image for $90,000 off of “his work” with all funds being donated to the original artists (minus some cash for expenses and time)? Hrm…I see a fun campaign idea…

Recent Posts