Copyright or wrong?

josalomon,

Week 2 focussed on the business side of things more, including copyright. We were asked to consider the legal case Cariou v Prince and give our opinion of the situation.

At first I approached it from a legal rather than moral viewpoint, understanding that the judges found most of the images in Canal Zone by Richard Prince altered enough the original images by Patrick Cariou to mean they did not infringe upon copyright.

The case judgement seems to pivot around a few key points of the case, one of which is whether the work is transformative: “Whether the new work merely `supersedes the objects’ of the original creation, or instead adds something new,” (Patrick CARIOU v. Richard PRINCE 2013)

The court decided that most of the work qualified as being transformative, and I agree that a number of Prince’s pieces do transform the original artworks.

kS8CmM3vKZ61_2340x1316
Richard Prince, Cheese & Crackers, 2008

Most of my colleagues disagreed and felt that the artworks did not change the images enough to be considered transformative, and described them as copies instead. If we look at the image given as an example in our student discussion then I agree, there is a distinct lack of transformation.

(Here the original Cariou image is on the left and the Prince version is on the right.)

2_02_Forum
image on left: Patrick Cariou, Yes Rasta, 2000 / image on right: Richard Prince, Graduation, 2008

Based on this image, Prince’s work does very little to the image aesthetically and I would argue in terms of meaning also.

So at the beginning of this discussion I was slightly alone in feeling that much of Prince’s work was transformative, but some key images were not.

However, my opinion towards Prince and his work has changed since I read his own artists notes that accompanied his exhibition Canal Zone (Gagosian Gallery, May 8 – June 14 2014). I thought he would have clear reasoning for using these images, that there would be artistically inspired meaning behind them. That their use was, in fact, justified by the artist.

He has either decided against explaining the images;

“I’m not going to explain why there’re Rastas and naked women in the paintings, except to say . . . formality . . . and, one thing leads to another. You figure it out. For me art is about continuation, autobiography (the past), what’s right next to you (the present), and the skills to interpret feelings and sensations. There’re no mysteries. No secrets. I get it. And it’s about the only thing I get.” (Prince 2014)

Or he can’t. Either way, he fails to artistically justify the use of these images in my opinion. Saying one thing led to another is not specific enough. In this degree we are constantly having to explain our work and its relevance. Prince seems to feel he does not need to do that. He justifies his use of them by saying he ‘liked’ them.

“Like most images I work with they [the Rastas] weren’t mine. I didn’t know anything about Rastas. I didn’t know anything about their culture or how they lived. I had plenty of time to find out. What I went with was the attraction. I liked their dreads. The way they were dressed . . . gym shorts and flip-flops. Their look and lifestyle gave off a vibe of freedom. Maybe I’m wrong about the freedom but I don’t give a shit about being wrong.” (ibid.)

This is not enough to justify the use of a work that he knew was still within copyright (he got the images from a book that had not been printed too long before and could easily check about the photographer.)

This is not to say Prince always uses work from others without consulting them. In fact he boasts about giving reciprocal gifts for the use of other items, just not the Rastas.

“The repros of women were supplied from friends. Dian Hanson, John McWhinnie, Richard Kern. One repro came from Eric Kroll. I gave each of them a small study in return for their giving.

I don’t want to talk about where the Rastas came from.” (ibid.)

This, in my mind, is even worse. He himself is suggesting that he is using other people’s art work and that there should be give and take in that regard. But he does not give with the Rastas. His final sentence in the quote above is clearly a nod towards being sued.

So Prince cannot artistically justify their use, and has actively chosen not to give recompense for his use of the Rastas when he has for others. I cannot agree with his use in this case, now.

I agree with the legal findings, but morally have taken a slightly wonky journey but have ended up opposing Prince’s use of the Rastas.

UK law would probably be better for Cariou than US law in this case, as it is not so flimsy in terms of fair use. It does have fair use sections within copyright law, but tends to be applicable more for educational purposes than commercial ones.

If I were to get into collaging and then looked to sell that work I would study further the UK copyright law, as it does have a number of key differences to US copyright law, including Paternity Rights which are not automatically given but must be asserted. (DACS 2018)

This activity has certainly pointed out the importance of artistic vision and competence at articulating that if your artwork is questioned.

References:

Unknown's avatar

Published by josalomon

Leave a comment