# Artist Appropriates Instagram Photos, Sells for Tens of Thousands



## rexbobcat (May 23, 2015)

Apparently this guy, Richard Prince, has built his entire name on the backs of others. 

Richard Prince Selling Other People s Instagram Shots Without Permission for 100K


----------



## tirediron (May 23, 2015)

Scumball!


----------



## shefjr (May 24, 2015)

Fair use makes it okay.
I think that stinks! I would be ashamed to do this.


----------



## sm4him (May 24, 2015)

I completely fail to understand how directly lifting other people's Instagram photos, complete with their usernames and photo comments, and then selling big-a** prints of same for tens of thousands of dollars qualifies as "fair use." 
Dear Appeals Court: (in my best Inigo Montoya voice) I do not think that term means what you think it means.


----------



## bribrius (May 24, 2015)

careful what you post online....

ever wonder how many photos have been taken off THIS site.


----------



## limr (May 24, 2015)

Just as contemptible are the people paying him for someone else's work.


----------



## Braineack (May 24, 2015)

I'm trying to figure out what idiot buys them.  good for him.


----------



## 480sparky (May 24, 2015)

I fail to see how any respectable gallery would even consider showing his work.


----------



## KmH (May 24, 2015)

shefjr said:


> Fair use makes it okay.


I almost posted that story a few days ago when I first saw it.
This guy sounds worse than Shepard Fairey.
Shepard Fairey - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Fair use is not well defined and is adjudicated by the federal courts on a case-by-case basis.
Search Cases U.S. Copyright Office
Of course "fair use" is usually the first 2 words used by an infringer to justify themselves.

Someone will have the stones to hold Richard Price's feet to the fire.
I hope Richard doesn't spend all his money, because he stands little chance of prevailing a copyright infringement action.

In the case of images taken from the Internet owned by copyright owners outside the US the Berne Convention applies.

He is likely banking on the fact many won't know he has stolen their image(s) so he can sell them and/or that the copyright owner(s) cannot afford to pursue a copyright infringement action in federal court.


----------



## shefjr (May 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I'm trying to figure out what idiot buys them.  good for him.


I wish we could use two of the stupid button things because I both agree with the first sentence and disagree with your second. 
IMO he is a thief and don't think people who steal should be rewarded for it. 

I agree that I hope he won't spend all of his money as Keith said because if you read the full article when he first did this he didn't have a pot to piss in and so he had nothing to lose. Now with selling other peoples images he has plenty to lose and I hope that the people he stole from are compensated. I would want that for any of the photographers here on the forum. 

Also, I'm sure I'm wrong but, wouldn't he need some sort of model release for the images of people? What if he modified the images enough to place one of the people into an unwanted position?


----------



## table1349 (May 25, 2015)

This is in no way defending Prince, but I do believe it is also a commentary on social media and where society as a whole has gone.  We always admonish people asking how to protect their photos if they post them that if you put it up some one can steal it.  Case in point.  

Prince has taken the old adage of "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" to heart.


----------



## Overread (May 25, 2015)

Prince gets away with it because it sounds like he's got serious intimidation on his side. Someone paying $90,000 for a print - eh I wouldn't be surprised if he's up to his neck in money laundering or something of that ilk. It just seems to be too high value; too high cost to be the kind of thing "people just don't opposed"; since it seems that the person in the article is choosing not to challenge the sales.

So I'm wagering something is going on that isn't reported - either its the whole fact that he's got enough cash now to court block and got fools buying his stuff; or there's more entanglements that makes it near impossible or impractical to oppose him. 

It's a sad state of affairs indeed.


----------



## 480sparky (May 25, 2015)

Maybe someone should go into the gallery, photograph his stolen work, then sell it for $85,000.


----------



## unpopular (May 25, 2015)

This guy must have some fancy lawyers to argue that these meet the transformative doctrine of fair use appropriation.

I don't necessarily mind appropriations. But this is clearly derivative.


----------



## shefjr (May 25, 2015)

So this makes me wonder if images are copyrighted, can someone still use them if they change them enough artistically? Is it a "fair use" type of thing? 
For instance the changes TPF member Modifye did to his own images.

See Things Differently Photography Forum


----------



## Overread (May 25, 2015)

It's a very big grey area as to how far you can modify something before copyright expires and often as not comes down to who can afford teh better lawyers for longer (esp in the US system). Internationally its even more a nightmare of a mess.

That said the values in the OP sound insane - they sound like something is going on the background that isn't right to allow such huge sums to exchange hands for clearly stolen work and that's before we even get to the topic of how he's managing to charge such vast sums AND get paid for them.


----------



## KmH (May 25, 2015)

shefjr said:


> So this makes me wonder if images are copyrighted, can someone still use them if they change them enough artistically? Is it a "fair use" type of thing?
> For instance the changes TPF member Modifye did to his own images.
> 
> See Things Differently Photography Forum


Richard Prince has serious legal exposure to a whole slew of infringement actions. One of the photos in that story looks like a young Kate Moss.

From the US Copyright Office web site;
Circular 14, _Copyright Registration for Derivative Works_.

"*Copyright Protection in Derivative Works*
The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party."

"*Right to Prepare Derivative Works*
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. *The unauthorized adaption of a work may constitute copyright infringement*.


----------



## unpopular (May 26, 2015)

Keith. I don't know how many times I have to go over this with you:




*IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.*


​


----------



## KmH (May 26, 2015)

I never said it was simple.
I've said many times that even the federal courts have trouble sorting out what is or isn't fair use - or a derivative.
Read the law. That's why I provided the links and quotes.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 26, 2015)

Apparently the photographer started out in the late '70s and early '80s using ads to recreate into photographic art. Although some of these used images that seem recognizable, which I found rather surprising, they used photos already published in magazines. The art would have been on display or sold as fine art prints, where releases usually aren't needed and the usage wouldn't have probably gone much further than hanging on the wall of a gallery or someone's home; they certainly wouldn't have ended up all over the internet then.
MOCA The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles
Collection Online Richard Prince - Guggenheim Museum

I think taking it this far to use screen shots of other people's photos and just changing the captions is not exactly creative or original; if someone wants to alter a photo into artwork, then why not use your own photos??

One thing that had occurred to me and I hadn't seen mentioned was that when photos are posted on sites like Facebook and Instagram it puts them under the site's Terms & Conditions. Today I saw this on the Washington Post. - The Washington Post Scroll down to the blog post about a reminder that your Instagram photos aren't really yours... (These links don't seem to be working, go to the Washington Post blogs and find the style blog. Or don't bother... lol)

Site users agree to terms when signing up so I think it's necessary to read the terms and not use a website that allows itself or others to make use of people's photos posted on the site. As long as people keep using some of these sites as-is I doubt the Terms & Conditions will change.


----------



## unpopular (May 26, 2015)

KmH said:


> Read the law. That's why I provided the links and quotes.



That's the problem though. Case law IS law and code is only part of the whole picture. Granted, code and common law is a the primary starting point. However you can't take a cut-and-dry approach to copyright. It's one of those things that seems like it's simple and straightforward (and in your run of the mill "mechanical reproduction" type cases, it is) - but it very quickly becomes almost philosophic in how it's applied.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (May 28, 2015)

This is pretty good:  SuicideGirls Deliver Cleverest Response to Richard Prince s Instagram Appropriation


----------



## acparsons (May 29, 2015)

He is one of the greatest artists I have ever heard of. Scam artist that is.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 7, 2015)

Distractify An Artist Stole These Models Work And Their Revenge Is Absolute Genius



> Suicide Girls founder, Missy Suicide, was not having any of Prince's shenanigans and decided to get back at Prince in the most righteously ironic way imaginable: selling their own identical prints for a thousandth of the price.
> 
> Not only are they the same images printed on the same type of canvas, but there's an added comment on the official Suicide Girls' pieces that reads: "True Art." Sources indicate, but have not confirmed that Missy Suicide also sent Richard Prince a tube of ointment, because she just burned him hardcore. In all seriousness though, Missy Suicide insists that "...she's not holding a grudge" and that Suicide Girls will not be taking any legal action against Prince.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 7, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Apparently the photographer started out in the late '70s and early '80s using ads to recreate into photographic art. Although some of these used images that seem recognizable, which I found rather surprising, they used photos already published in magazines. The art would have been on display or sold as fine art prints, where releases usually aren't needed and the usage wouldn't have probably gone much further than hanging on the wall of a gallery or someone's home; they certainly wouldn't have ended up all over the internet then.
> MOCA The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles
> Collection Online Richard Prince - Guggenheim Museum
> 
> ...


i always tell people to be careful how and what they post online. No one ever listens..

Never really understood photographers taking other photographers photos either. Why would you when you can just take your own photo? And the point of the photo (for me at least) is it is MY photo. Why would i wanted someone elses photo?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 8, 2015)

Beats me. But it seems like as long as people are willing to continue using sites with the Terms as written it seems to leave the door open for this type thing to keep happening.

If people would stop using a site or pull their photos off until the Terms are changed that might get companies to make some revisions to their Terms. I don't feel like I need 'them' (the websites) as much as they need 'us' (people posting their photos).

Privacy Policy Instagram This includes Terms such as if you make your content public it can be 're-shared'; even if you remove your content other users or third parties may have copied or shared it. 

Terms of Use Instagram Under Rights users agree to grant a license to the website that is 'royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable' and on and on... which seems that users would get no payment for usage, licensing can be transferred, etc. etc. I wouldn't agree to this, no way, no how.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 10, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Distractify An Artist Stole These Models Work And Their Revenge Is Absolute Genius
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wish it was another company doing this.  After reading about this I saw some comments about the irony in Suicide Girls tackling someone who they feel wronged them. 

Apparently SG's business practices concerning models and photographer haven't been...the greatest (*cough* turning over all images rights and signing a two-year non-compete agreement *cough*)

Why can't revenge ever be taken out by saints? Then again...I guess if they did enact revenge, they wouldn't exactly be saints...

Blah.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2015)

I find it funny they won't go for a legal approach.  I'm sure no one that was willing to pay the asshat $100,000 is going to pay them $90.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 10, 2015)

Copyrights issues aside, I'm still scratching my head on how he can charge $90,000 (and apparently get it).   This kind of marketing was not covered in any of my courses in business school.  Anyone having any insights?


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2015)

Art holds value only because people say it has that value and others or themselves are willing to pay that value. It is this possible that those with considerable income are able to significantly affect what is and is not "valuable" by their choice of investment into it. 

As such it is possible to invest ones cash into physical assets which can be more easily moved around with less tax and costs incurred. They can also be useful gifts; or you can work to increase the value of the product in itself. If 10 of these sold for $90K it would stand to reason that others might presume that they hold significant value; as such one could then re-sell for a significantly higher price; especially if each copy is a "unique" one in some nature. 



Thus it could be that he's managed to work his way into that segment of the market; where he can charge an insane price and get it because its money being moved around. It's not a single baring on the quality of the art itself, simply a useful function of it. 

Another option is that he knows enough of the right people to convince them to pay $90K on paper, yet behind the scenes the money gets transferred back to its source. As such the "sale" price is shown very high, however the actual amount paid is tiny, or might even be nothing at all with those performing the act hoping that by artificially raising the perceived value they can convince another outside of their group to pay a similar or at least high value amount and thus both parties profit from that sale. 



I'd say its something of a dubious nature involved here; I can't honestly see how reprints of something shown online in instagram and screenshotted would ever command such a value in honest trade (though we must, of course, assume that it is a possibility that someone did honestly pay this amount with no ruse at all attached)


----------

