Instagram images reused in art exhibit without permission of copyright holder

[schin]

Good for her! Though I suspect buyers are not buying it for the actual art itself... they're buying it because of the Richard Prince 'name brand'.. unfortunately. Still I wish her the best of luck!

[Estefa]

I must admit that I go with Linda and find this project very interesting from an artistic perspective. For me this has much more layers than just the copying aspect, also it is about what is perceived as private (even if it is clearly not, if millions of people can watch it), or as art, and why, and so on. Still without a doubt I'd feel hurt and uncomfortable on a personal level if he'd used one of my pictures – and the fact that stuff like that is easily possible is actually one of the reasons that I rarely post a personal picture of myself, and would never, ever post pics of my children online.

I read through some of the comments on twitter and the articles posted here, and find it also fascinating that at least some of the people he used the pictures from didn't seem overly offended.

Natascha, I am not sure if it would also be possible to exhibit / produce these prints in Germany or Austria, which are countries with, as far as I know, stricter copyright laws, because 'artistic freedom' – I think, called 'fair use' in the USA – allows more than you may think. Still the outcome would probably depend on the specific case / lawyers / judges.

Apparently this artist has been sued several times with other projects, but always got away because of 'fair use'. And it's not only because the artist now is rich and can afford good lawyers, against the authors of the pictures, because apparently he won cases in the past against Marlboro, which also can afford very good lawyers, I presume.

As I said, I find it a rather intelligent, if disturbing project. Don't get me wrong, I don't 'like' like it, but I like that it makes me think. Which art, among other things, should do with people, in my opinion.

Maybe some of you may be interested in the approach on this student's work – it's his interface design bachelor thesis project:

http://interface.fh-potsdam.de/showcase/what/sousveillance/

He printed out pictures he found on IG, hung them in the neighbourhood of the homes of the users (using their embedded geolocation information), took a pic of these prints which he again uploaded under a pseudo and tagged the original authors – getting the most different responses, from thankfulness to anger.

[Erica McPhee]

This is everything that is wrong with our justice system. This is not art to me. This is called being an ass. Why is it we can get sued (and lose) if we calligraph the lyric to a song (which is altering the original work - from song to written art, right?). But this guy can clearly steal other people's images, barely make a change, make gazoodles of money for it from people who buy into his "art" garbage sell and win against copyright lawsuits. It makes me really angry.

And no - no matter how many times you post something on the internet - you still own it. It's still yours. It's like having a piece of your work published in a magazine or on television. You still own it no matter how many million people see it.

"Flexibility of copyright laws" - RIDICULOUS! It's cut and dry. We all know he stole the images! It's not right.

People like Richard Prince are the same kind of people who are internet trolls - they get off on goading people - making people mad and sad. It makes me sick people pay him that kind of money for it, too.

[Erica McPhee]

LOL... I just went back and read the Vulture article. Yeah, he said it much more eloquently than my rant. 

But this is pure and utter bullcrap: "But it’s what he does in the comments field that is truly brilliant, and which adds layers on top of the disconcerting images. Here he is delving as deep as he ever has into privacy, copyright, and appropriation, twisting images so that they actually seem to undergo some sort of sick psychic-artistic transubstantiation where they no longer belong to the original makers."

And this is where the article is wrong again, "Never mind that all these images shadow us everywhere now and already exist in a public uncopyrighted digital realm." They are copyrighted on IG.

[Andrew H]

The thing is, in this case, he didn't actually even change the images themselves at all!! Just the comments under them. Does adding something onto a sheet of paper underneath someone else's photo suddenly make it yours!!?? That would mean I could take any piece of calligraphy I find on the internet saying "Happy Birthday", for example, and add "To You" underneath it and sell it as my own work.

[Erica McPhee]

Exactly Andrew!

[joi]

This is everything that is wrong with our justice system. This is not art to me. This is called being an ass. Why is it we can get sued (and lose) if we calligraph the lyric to a song (which is altering the original work - from song to written art, right?). But this guy can clearly steal other people's images, barely make a change, make gazoodles of money for it from people who buy into his "art" garbage sell and win against copyright lawsuits. It makes me really angry.

And no - no matter how many times you post something on the internet - you still own it. It's still yours. It's like having a piece of your work published in a magazine or on television. You still own it no matter how many million people see it.

"Flexibility of copyright laws" - RIDICULOUS! It's cut and dry. We all know he stole the images! It's not right.

People like Richard Prince are the same kind of people who are internet trolls - they get off on goading people - making people mad and sad. It makes me sick people pay him that kind of money for it, too.

AND THIS IS WHY I LOVE YOU ERICA!!!!!

[Marcia Aronow]

Another aspect of this story:  I wonder how his buyers who apparently spent $90,000 each feel now?  If it were me, I'd feel sick to my stomach.  Perhaps they are so wealthy that it was only a drop in the bucket.   

[AndyT]

They're laughing all the way to the bank.

For a reasoned critique of this work and a brief resumé of some relevant art history, this video entitled "Richard Prince Smells Bad" is worth 10 minutes or so of anybody's time.  Forbes' accusation that the work is mediocre and derivative cuts a lot more ice with me than all the moral and legal arguments which have been bandied about over the last week or so.  The controversy is precisely what drives those prices after all.

[Erica McPhee]

Interesting video... now just listen to it and everytime he says photography, pretend he says calligraphy. Scary. LOL! 

P.S. I don't think his argument is more relevant than the copyright issue but I liked his explanation.

[AndyT]

The reason why Forbes' critique is relevant is because it is effective, whereas the copyright argument hasn't worked so far and since this exhibition has been doing the rounds since last year it's unlikely anything will come of it now.

I agree with a lot of what Forbes says: this was an easy target and the concept is quite an obvious one (although as I said before the reaction adds another theatrical layer).  It's certainly lacks the originality of the Marlboro project, and looks like the work of a mature artist trading on his reputation.  The question "is it art"? is a ridiculous one, but in my opinion it's legitimate work, but lazy.

Anyway, how much damage has been done, really?  The model who is selling prints has an unexpected sideline and some useful publicity, and at worst the other "victims" have had a low resolution screenshot of their narcissistic banality blown up to mock heroic proportions and displayed in the Gagosian.  Why is it okay for these images to be publicly displayed on Instagram if their subjects are so upset about them appearing in a gallery ... or is it, as I suspect, all about the money?

Of course, the copyright belongs to the photographer, but strangely enough none of them seem to be making much of a fuss.  Maybe because they have a more realistic understanding of how this going to play out legally.  I don't see how this is particularly relevant to calligraphy since a piece of writing is a physical object, but the same principle can be applied as in the digital photography world: never post your high resolution images.

[Blotbot]

One reason this artist may get away with it is because the photographers are not professionals.  They may get a thrill about being to topic of an artists work.  Maybe he gives them a free print to keep it all copacetic. 

[AndyT]

It's my understanding that not only were some of the photographers professional, but also some of the models - and furthermore some of the subjects are friends of Prince.  As one might expect, he is no stranger to the courts and has a string of "fair use" rulings in his favour, so suing him is likely to be an expensive undertaking since the probable outcome is failure.  For an interesting look at the legal side of these shenanigans and an insight into just how far Prince is willing to push the issue, this article is a good read.

[Erica McPhee]

The reason why Forbes' critique is relevant is because it is effective...

This would have been much more effective had he not repeated himself 15,000 times. His video could have been 3 minutes rather than 11.

Anyway, how much damage has been done, really?

This argument is the same one just about every person who violates copyright law employs. It's irrelevant to the point how much damage is done, who benefits from it etc. We could say the same thing - how much does it really damage Taylor Swift when we calligraph her lyrics - it doesn't - I'm sure she wouldn't lose a single sale because of it and may even make some because others are exposed to it. Doesn't fly in court for us and it shouldn't for him.

I don't see how this is particularly relevant to calligraphy since a piece of writing is a physical object, but the same principle can be applied as in the digital photography world: never post your high resolution images.

I was talking more in relation to the history of art and modern calligraphy. But this applies exactly to calligraphy in terms of copyright as well. Both in us as calligraphers using copyrighted words to calligraph and our calligraphic work.

If he had taken my calligraphy images off IG and done this, you better believe I would sue him.

[Erica McPhee]

P.S. Congrats to AndyT for being a Super HERO!