Photographer Dennis Morris filed a copyright infringement claim last week against appropriation artist Richard Prince in a Los Angeles federal court. The claim is the latest in a growing number of cases filed by photographers accusing Prince of stealing t
Morris, who is based in Los Angeles, is charging Prince with unauthorized use of several photographs of Sid Vicious, the lead singer of the Sex Pistols. Gagosian Gallery, which represents Prince, is also named as a defendant in the case.
Photographer Donald Graham has sued appropriation artist Richard Prince and his gallerist Lawrence Gagosian for copyright infringement of a photo that appeared without Graham’s authorization on Instagram, and then in a gallery exhibition of Prince’s appro
Prince drew public complaints and vitriol last year for unauthorized reproduction, display and sale of a series of 67 x 55-inch inkjet prints of Instagram “screen saves” of images by other artists and photographers. But Graham is the first to sue.
Richard Prince’s controversial appropriated Instagram selfie photos have made their way to the Gagosian Gallery in London and are currently on d...
Richard Prince’s controversial appropriated Instagram selfie photos have made their way to the Gagosian Gallery in London and are currently on display. This exhbition will be closing on August 1, 2015, giving you a couple more days to go check it out.
Making sense of Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” is kind of like trying to orient yourself in a hall of mirrors. The greatest revelation from the work and the ensuing discussion—a period of art commentary so pervasive and drawn out, there is no precedent I can think of from my lifetime—is the astonishing lack of self-awareness and understanding of the arcane laws that govern our visual culture and now with the advancement of communication technology affect us all.
There are many people who have studied and understand the art world better than me. But there is one thing that I’m sure of: Richard Prince is a jerk. I say this for two reasons. First, I haven’t read anything that suggests he has the self-awareness and i
If Prince wants to sample, then he should pay for the source material like everyone else, and stop hiding behind some false veil of “genius” and “fair use.”
The US Supreme Court has declined to review Patrick Cariou’s copyright infringement claim against artist Richard Prince, the Associated Press has reported. A federal appeals court ruled last spring that artist Richard Prince did not infringe Cariou’s copy
In its ruling for Prince, The appeals court took a broad view of fair use, finding that Prince’s works qualified as fair use even though they were not intended as commentary on the original works by Cariou. The decision was a victory for appropriation artists, who take elements of works by other artists without permission, and use them in new contexts, often as a form of commentary on society or popular culture
At left, photograph by Patrick Cariou from the book Yes, Rasta . Right, painting by Richard Prince from his Canal Zone series Last sum...
Last summer photo-eye hosted a series of lectures on art law that culminated in a panel discussion on appropriation centering around the highly discussed Cariou v. Prince. With the appellate court decision in Prince's favor in April, the discussion continues, and we asked two of our panelist, Talia Kosh and Craig Anderson, to weigh in on the ruling.
A federal appeals court has ruled that artist Richard Prince did not infringe photographer Patrick Cariou’s copyrights by reproducing several dozen of Cariou’s images without permission. The appeals court said 25 out of 30 works by Prince at the center of
The appeals court said 25 out of 30 works by Prince at the center of the dispute made fair use of Cariou’s photographs.
As we’ve reported in our coverage of photographer Patrick Cariou’s infringement claim against Richard Prince, Prince and his defenders argue that appropriation art does little harm to individuals from whom appropriation artists steal their raw materials.
As we’ve reported in our coverage of photographer Patrick Cariou’s infringement claim against Richard Prince, Prince and his defenders argue that appropriation art does little harm to individuals from whom appropriation artists steal their raw materials. Their implied question: Where would civilization be without the great works of appropriation artists like Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg?
The Shooting Gallery, a tumblr featuring videos about photographers. The videos are divided into two categories: photographers talking and photographers shooting. There are 14 pages of archives to the blog, in which you’ll find videos about the likes of Richard Prince, Donald Weber, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Jeff Mermelstein, Stephen Shore, Terry Richardson, Juergen Teller, Cindy Sherman, Ryan McGinley, William Eggleston (including this ridiculous interview on the Today Show), and many others.
It’s a few weeks after the latest Richard Prince brouhaha, and as expected things haven’t changed. The art world has come down on the side of Richard Prince, with the argument basically being that it’s a terrible ruling for appropriation art because it’s a terrible ruling for appropriation art. I might be missing something, but in none of the articles I’ve read any of the defenders of Richard Prince has given an actual explanation of why this particular case is a valid case of appropriation art
A few days ago, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled that Richard Prince had violated Patrick Cariou’s copyright when using some of the images from the Yes Rasta book to produce Canal Zone. Much has since been written about this ruling, here are a few of the reactions/takes: Rob Haggart/A Photo Editor, Ed Winkleman, Donn Zaretsky, Paddy Johnson. In a nutshell, photographers for the most parts are giddy that Prince lost, whereas the non-photo art world is appalled by the ruling
In December of 2008 photographer Patrick Cariou filed suit against Ricard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian and Rizzoli International Publications in federal district court (here). The suit came about after Prince appropriated 28 images from Pat
this is quite a victory for photographers and the judgment is fascinating reading for fair use buffs (download it here), What I really found interesting is how badly most people (myself included) interpret the transformation part of appropriating works.
Garry Gross, Richard Prince and the story behind the Brooke Shields photograph
The Richard Prince photograph of Brooke Shields that Tate Modern recently withdrew from the exhibition Pop Life, after Scotland Yard suggested it might break obscenity laws, travelled across the Atlantic carrying a long history of controversy. It shows a 10-year-old Shields, oiled and glistening, naked and made-up, posing in a marble bathtub with a seductive danger that belies her years. She has, in Prince's description, "a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's got a different birthday."
A Photo Editor – Prince And Gagosian Respond to Cariou Lawsuit