# How is this legal?



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2008)

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003692111



> The record-breaking Prince image is from his untitled cowboy series  in which Prince photographed sections of Marlboro cigarette ads and enlarged the photos to an enormous size.  _[...]
> 
> _Prince's works have been a source of controversy, with some saying that his technique uses other photographers' work without giving them due credit. But the debate has done nothing to slow the popularity of Prince's work, judging by the increasing prices and press coverage of a current exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York.



This guy got $3.4 million for enlarging someone else's work.  WTF!?


----------



## Battou (Jan 10, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003692111
> 
> 
> 
> This guy got $3.4 million for enlarging someone else's work.  WTF!?



I don't know, I do know that one can not copyright _the_ subject of a photograph and that a photo of others work can be claimed and copyrighted as normal, but this just seems wrong in many ways.


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 10, 2008)

IMO, it is illegal. But nobody has pushed it. maybe?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2008)

When I first opened the article I thought, "wow, that looks just like a Marlboro ad", I couldn't believe it actually was one.

I don't see how that is any different than me printing out any of the many photos on here and selling it as my own.


----------



## Battou (Jan 10, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> When I first opened the article I thought, "wow, that looks just like a Marlboro ad", I couldn't believe it actually was one.
> 
> I don't see how that is any different than me printing out any of the many photos on here and selling it as my own.



There is a difference, But I don't know enough about his stuff to garentee accuracy.

But assuming I am reading it correctly, basically what it is that he is doing is along the lines of say, Photographing half to three quarters of the painting "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" and calling something else with no mention of Seurat and changing it's meaning. As opposed to forging or even steeling the painting and claiming it as their own. I think, more or less.


Either way you look at it it's not right, but it may be a loop hole.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2008)

Battou said:


> There is a difference, But I don't know enough about his stuff to garentee accuracy.
> 
> But assuming I am reading it correctly, basically what it is that he is doing is along the lines of say, Photographing half to three quarters of the painting "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" and calling something else with no mention of Seurat and changing it's meaning. As opposed to forging or even steeling the painting and claiming it as their own. I think, more or less.


There may be a legal difference (I'm no lawyer...), but morally I think it is the same as stealing.

I understand what you're saying, but even if it's just a portion of it - I still think it's stealing...  I know you're not saying that it's OK, but even in the situation you're describing it's highly immoral in the least - and criminal in my opinion.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 10, 2008)

Do I get it right?
This Richard Prince placed himself in front of a Marlboro poster, snapped part of it, and is now making 3.4 millions from that one little snap off something someone else had photographed before him?

To me, that is ... yes: immoral (also per part of those who pay that amount of money for it!, as buying that photo for such a price adds to his believing he did immensely right and well!) and ... if illegal ... I don't know, but it sure, sure, sure does not feel right! 

But on the other hand I also fail to understand the buyers!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Do I get it right?
> This Richard Prince placed himself in front of a Marlboro poster, snapped part of it, and is now making 3.4 millions from that one little snap off something someone else had photographed before him?


Yeah, I think that's pretty much how it went down.

Imagine if this was your photo...  I would be pissed.

He basically just cropped someone else's work and sold it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jan 10, 2008)

It just goes to show that there is, as Barnum is supposed to have said, a sucker born every minute.
If Prince can find someone stupid enough to pay him that much money for so little effort then I can only wish him the very best of luck.

And don't feel too badly for the guy who did the Marboro' add - he would have been very well paid for his work and anyway the client owns the copyright, not him. So if Prince is 'ripping off' anyone it is the tobacco company.


----------



## shundaroni (Jan 10, 2008)

I think this serves to validate a discussion in another thread about marketing being the most important element of publicly-renowned photography. There are two reasons why people buy this jackass's photos: their novel size ("oh wow! It's HUGE!") and their controversial nature ("oh wow! It's NONCONFORMIST!").

The buyers of "fine art" are, by and large, complete idiots. The artists that sell to them know this, and spend more time marketing than actually creating their work. Do you honestly think Prince thought it would be artistically meaningful to steal ad images and blow them up? Or did he simply know how the artistic buying community worked? Taking a cue from Warhol, he took a familiar image and made it bigger, and morons ate it up.

Good for him. Why not make a few million off of gullible buyers?


----------



## nicfargo (Jan 10, 2008)

I personally would not do this, probably because I have a soul, but congrats to him for making a ridiculous amount of money on someone else's work.   100 inches is still less then 10 feet, so this thing is not all that big.  He probably used a digital medium format, or maybe even a large format camera, did some cropping and called it good.  Talk about an easy life of work (who wouldn't be able to live the rest of their life on the 2 million he made if they invested right).


----------



## rob91 (Jan 10, 2008)

Art at it's dumbest, but hey, if the big bucks are in snapping someone else's work then maybe it's worth a shot.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 10, 2008)

All I have to say is I wonder what kind of drugs the guy was on that BOUGHT that.


----------



## Neuner (Jan 10, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't see how that is any different than me printing out any of the many photos on here and selling it as my own.



I think there is a lot of gray area with what he has done.  It's not the same as directly printing off someone else's work, he snapped a photo of something that was publicly displayed.

It's immediately recognizable and appealing because of marketing from Marlboro.  Without them I would see this photo as even more pointless.

I see this as gray area b/c how is this different than taking a photo of part of a larger one versus photographing sculptures, water-fountains, architecture, a car, etc.  Each of these stand as someone else's creation but yet there are photos out there of these things.  Where is the line drawn?  I guess by what the courts decide when/if someone sues.


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 10, 2008)

Neuner said:


> I see this as gray area b/c how is this different than taking a photo of part of a larger one versus photographing sculptures, water-fountains, architecture, a car, etc.  Each of these stand as someone else's creation but yet there are photos out there of these things.  Where is the line drawn?  I guess by what the courts decide when/if someone sues.



I doubt there will be any 600 Y.O. sculptors filing suit in the near future to settle case law.


----------



## smcaskil (Jan 10, 2008)

From this article: 

While technically a photograph, the Prince work is better described as a re-photograph. Created in 1989, the piece is one in a series of photos Prince took of portions of Marlboro cigarette ads. Prince began photographing advertisements torn from magazines while working as a press clips collator at Time Life in the 1970s. This particular print is one of two other than the artist's proof; the other is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
​He actually created these images are part of his work Time Life as a press clips collator.  While working for them, he would photograph interesting ads and now is turning around and selling them for millions.

What he actually did was steal from his employer, Time Life, since he was doing his own project while on their time clock.  He then stole from RJR Tobacco when he used an image they most likely paid handsomely to make an iconic image throughout the years.  

Now he is sitting at home, collecting millions for doing nothing more than taking a photograph of a well-known image.  Keep that guy out of the Louvre with his camera!


----------



## Neuner (Jan 10, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> I doubt there will be any 600 Y.O. sculptors filing suit in the near future to settle case law.



So?  What's your point?


----------



## craig (Jan 10, 2008)

Seems to me that Richard Prince has a message and people are buying it. I doubt that any one spending 3 mill on a photo is an idiot. I also doubt that there are sketchy copyright implications. If I was interested I would spend more time understanding Prince's work.

Love & Bass


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2008)

smcaskil said:


> He then stole from RJR Tobacco when he used an image they most likely paid handsomely to make an iconic image throughout the years.


I think Marlboro is Phillip Morris, not RJR...



			
				craig said:
			
		

> I also doubt that there are sketchy copyright implications.


You're probably right...  If it was illegal I'm sure it would be taken to court very quickly.  It just seems wrong though.

Does anyone know the relevant copyright laws?  Is it legal because the ad was widely known?  Because it is now no longer an ad, but art?

I just can't figure out what makes it OK (legally, ...to me it is not OK, morally).  I just don't see myself "getting away with it" if I tried the same thing.  Do copyrights expire eventually (I don't think so, but I don't know a whole lot about copyright law) - like a patent?



			
				Neuner said:
			
		

> I think there is a lot of gray area with what he has done. It's not the same as directly printing off someone else's work, he snapped a photo of something that was publicly displayed.


Yeah, but isn't everything on here "publicly displayed" too?  This forum may not have as large of an audience as a Marlboro ad, but it's not exactly inaccessible to the general public.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 11, 2008)

It probably has something to do with the fact that that photo selling for that much is just like advertisement for said company and suing would be bad press.


----------



## Mesoam (Jan 11, 2008)

boy imagine that exquisite piece hanging above your mantle 

//end sarcasm


----------



## RMThompson (Jan 11, 2008)

I think that the "artist" is trying to pass it off as a found art piece, but what a joke. I mean if the ad was something NOT ARTISTIC that turned artistic, I could somewhat understand... but this already was art.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 11, 2008)

NObody griped about a stack of soup cans.    LOLOLOL


----------



## Puscas (Jan 11, 2008)

ah man, I just came up with the idea of taking a pic of a cigarette ad, blowing it up and selling it as art. Guess I'm too late?  
Well, back to my dayjob then.





pascal


----------



## salexander867 (Jan 12, 2008)

I am not sure how a true artist could take credit for this. This, to me, is like one of you selling a photo for an ad. Then I see the add and decide that I do not like the way you cropped the pic so I take a photo of your photo and crop it to the way I like. Then sell it as my own photo. 

I would have done nothing artistic other than the crop. I didn't do the setup or determine exposure, etc.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 12, 2008)

salexander867 said:


> I am not sure how a true artist could take credit for this. This, to me, is like one of you selling a photo for an ad. Then I see the add and decide that I do not like the way you cropped the pic so I take a photo of your photo and crop it to the way I like. Then sell it as my own photo.
> 
> I would have done nothing artistic other than the crop. I didn't do the setup or determine exposure, etc.



Isn't 99% of taking a picture "cropping"?  Read cropping as composition.


----------



## skieur (Jan 12, 2008)

In Copyright Law, copying is defined as copying the complete work or a substantial part of a work.

If he copied less than a substantial part of the original copyrighted work, then he has not violated any law.

skieur


----------



## nossie (Jan 12, 2008)

This just gave me a great idea for a theme... we should all go out and take photographs of bill posters in our town... and you never know we just might hit the big time for it.


----------



## Battou (Jan 12, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> Does anyone know the relevant copyright laws?  Is it legal because the ad was widely known?  Because it is now no longer an ad, but art?



http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

I am fairly certain both of these images originated in the US so these are the Copyright laws that apply. I am constantly reviewing that site for other reasons and actually know them rather well but, you will find your difinitive answers there, and if you cant you can ask for them and I am certain they will explain them.



O|||||||O said:


> I just can't figure out what makes it OK (legally, ...to me it is not OK, morally).  I just don't see myself "getting away with it" if I tried the same thing.  Do copyrights expire eventually (I don't think so, but I don't know a whole lot about copyright law) - like a patent?



Yes copyrights do expire, Fifty years after death of original copyrightholder.




O|||||||O said:


> Yeah, but isn't everything on here "publicly displayed" too?  This forum may not have as large of an audience as a Marlboro ad, but it's not exactly inaccessible to the general public.



There is still a difference, here is an example real quick using one of my images that is perfectly legal (far from threemillion dollar type image but...)



fido dog said:


>



Now this is legal, The image belongs to fido dog despite my image being contained within, However fido dog is making no attempt at claiming my image or an exact duplicate as his own, only the photo that contains it. It prolly goes with out saying but, I doubt he is trying to make money off that shot but still, this image is copyright to him wile I retain the copyright on mine.

Printing out an image from the site does however constitute a copyright violation as it is an unautherised duplication and manipulation of an existing image. 

Creating an image containing a copyrighted image is still technically creation. No I don't like the fact he is making money of someoneelses photo but laws are oftern not on the same page as moral standards.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

Well the problem here is that everyone is looking at the moral situation here, where as he was looking at the business end. He found a nitch in the market and he decided to use it. 
To get around a copyright all you have to do is change the product or image 25% and it is yours. So this Prince guy crops the image greatly, blows it up to somewhat gianormous, and therefore sells it as his. He consciously made that decision to create this "new" image, and then decided to sell it. So from the business end of the deal, this Prince guy was brilliant, and I wish I would have thought of it, or even known how to sell some of my stuff for millions of dollars. 
But....
I also have a conscience and I am not sure I could actually do it, although the money would seriously be screaming my name.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

Money is not everything.  I would by far rather have my self esteem than money any day.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Money is not everything. I would by far rather have my self esteem than money any day.


 

Eh, give me the money... I could buy self-esteem later... lol


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

I guess that depends on what you value in life.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> I guess that depends on what you value in life.


 

I have been broke for way too long.. I think I might be tempted.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

I tend to believe that when something is needed it will show up.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> I tend to believe that when something is needed it will show up.


 

I quit believing that along time ago... I have needed it a lot, and it hasn't showed up yet.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

Big Bully said:


> I quit believing that along time ago... I have needed it a lot, and it hasn't showed up yet.


If you're still alive it wasn't needed.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> If you're still alive it wasn't needed.


 

That doesn't mean I don't need it..


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

I guess that depends on your definition of need.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 13, 2008)

So, please, pay me just one little million for this masterpiece of mine, a photo off the screen of our forum's little "huggie-smilies" in macro, it is art, isn't it? It sure is. So, who wants to buy it for just one little million? Hm? Hm?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2008)

Wow, that's cool.  

I don't know if I would have figured out what it was if you didn't say.


-edit-
WOW!  It's even cooler if you look at it from the other side of the room.

...I'm going to steal your idea...


----------



## Battou (Jan 13, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> Wow, that's cool.
> 
> I don't know if I would have figured out what it was if you didn't say.



I thought so too :mrgreen:


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 13, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> ...I'm going to steal your idea...


 
I was talking about *buying.  B-U-Y-I-N-G! :er:  *


:greenpbl:


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2008)

I wonder how a macro shot of your macro shot would look...

My version would probably command a pretty good price too.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2008)

I don't know why it isn't showing up...


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

That is an awesome shot.. You should concider selling that! I never would have guessed that it was the smilie until O|||||O said to go to the other end of the room.. Awesome idea, and very creative!!!

Yeah and like any one of us have a million dollars..


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

Who knows it is a large forum some rich guy is probably on here.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

Ya know you are probably right.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

At least one of the members here claims to be rich.  Ferrari  for a camera bag guy.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

There ya go LaFoto!! The ferrari camera bag guy will give you a mil for your photo.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

I wonder is it still considered impolite to describe someone instead of using their moniker in a forum?


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 13, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> I wonder is it still considered impolite to describe someone instead of using their moniker in a forum?


 

Umm, I'm not quite sure... lol
But you started it.. lol


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 13, 2008)

I've never actually been considered polite...  Kind yes, a decent person yes, polite NEVER.


----------



## Big Bully (Jan 14, 2008)

Haha glad we have that issue figured out then..


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 14, 2008)

One thing that sucks about the internet is my inability of the obvious next comment to render my previous statement humorous.


----------

