Definitely feeling both sides of the argument on this one, probably because of being half human and half consumer! The human in me says ‘we must be free to do the work that artists are here to do regardless of what that entails’ and the consumer in me says ‘yeah...but...money and recognition.’ Listening to the podcast, I was interested in the idea of transforming something through changing its context rather than substantially physically changing the original image - I think this is a valid form of transformation (but probably harder for people to accept because of materialistic habits). I also think it’s good for artists to challenge each other’s work. I suppose the real issue in this for me is how it highlights the way that creative output is processed through our societal frameworks. I’d say part of Prince’s work is to do with that and so I think it’s necessary that he gets himself pulled into the courtroom. Do we limit our relationship with art, and therefore its power, because of how society functions?
I agree with all you say here Katie. I think it's good for artists to challenge each other's work. The meaning of art always changes as contexts change, and Prince is testing all sorts of boundaries with his work even though when he talks about it he says absolute banalities. I can see how he infuriates people. I think your question is a valid one, and it would be interesting to see a complete overhaul of approach to thinking about art and ownership. But that feels like a utopian project and impossible within our current structures. Maybe it will change as AI and the internet develop. One of the GC's readers posted a really interesting TED talk about other ways of thinking about fair use which you might be interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc
Thanks for this, I’ll take a look. And yes, it’s a long-term project looking at the ways we function and how to adjust them for something better. ‘Better’ of course, being something not everyone can agree on!! As a consolation, I’m finding that life’s a bit of a French braid - you speak out and allow it to intertwine in everything else that’s going on, with the important thing being the speak out 😊
From a personal perspective I made a large piece using an image of a dress from a 1980’s magazine. I was interested in the shape and the line of the dress and was commenting on the representtion of women in media. The image was de-identified but the shape and pattern of the fabric remained. I sold the piece at an exhibition and it wasn’t until afterwards when I was reviewing photographs that I realised that the dress itself could be recognisable as a design by a well known designer. Fortunately, I haven’t ever shared the photographs and but I was startled that I didn’t realise that my appropriation of the image might be construed as breaching copyright. It’s a weird constraint to manage when the concept requires appropriation.
Amanda this is a really good example of the problem. We are all rooted in our shared visual culture and we accumulate a library of references - shapes, forms, lines, images, colours - in our minds. Elements of these will inevitably appear in art.
I do appreciate that it's a thorny issue. Like many things the abuse was hurtful and excessive (of artists material) and now the retaliation is also...
How would you feel as a writer if your words (say the paper you're most proud of) were copied verbatim without reference to you as the author? Similar hurt?
As far as I understand in the Lynn Goldsmith v Andy Warhol Foundation case Goldsmith was credited by Andy Warhol and she licensed him to create an artwork from her original photo for Vanity Fair years ago. So this case is all about a one-time agreement/payment. In which case there seems to be a more legible licensing issue here. But it doesn't seem that Prince credits or pays anyone. Just not sure what I think about that, because I actually think his work is really interesting. It does make me think and the meanings in his artworks do shift from the original. Really torn.
Thanks for your thoughts Helen, and yes I know exactly what you mean about feeling on the one hand and then on the other, so to speak.
In the Goldsmith v Warhol case, yes that's what I understood too about that specific case. But the general ruling has implications that will be felt more widely.
Credit where credit is due! Is probably my starting point on this.
I keep thinking about our human need to be ‘given credit’ and why it’s so valuable. For example, having credit attached to something is directly related to privileges of gravitas and money.
I suppose it’s all complicated by that ambiguous fact that two people viewing the same image have different perceptions depending on their role. From a psychological perspective it’s self interest then fairness that happens before the appraisal takes place.
There’s also this fascinating idea that our biases and framing of a situation fades our ethical response too so no matter how hard we try to be ethical when we look at something like this we are silently being tripped up along the way by our unconscious.
It does look to me like obvious change is easier to pass off as new art, but shouldn’t every artist be credited in that process?
This is interesting. Yes you can clearly see this self-interest/fairness argument playing out very loudly from many artists. But then on the other side the viewers who don't have anything to gain financially are less engaged in those dynamics (although often see the injustice of it).
We have this bias of a ‘just world hypothesis’ in other words, people get what they deserve. It’s just one way in which we are appraising events and people, and trying to establish if our social norms are being upheld or broken
We could say that people who view art, love art, create art are deeply interested in any attempt to socially undermine those norms. Social undermining can happen in many ways, and be fuelled by protest or bullying tactics.
When I think about it this way, is the artist trying to be truly innovative and push the boundaries of an institution with rules? provoke debate or perhaps they are just taking credit because they weighed up the risks and reward and it seemed fair game?
I’d imagine for the artists who are not credited it can be disorientating to suddenly find their work appropriated in this way. Isn’t that a form of manipulation?
I suspect that the wriggle room of what is ‘artistic interpretation’ as a social norm within art allows credit takers to hide in plain sight, this artist seems to have just taken that brief and run with it. The art speaks to me as a challenge in that respect, it’s egging the viewer on to reach a judgement.
Yes, although if you listen to Richard Prince speak he's definitely not got such a clever explanation. He's a bit like Andy Warhol in the nonchalant, flippant way he talks about his work.
Oh WOW Terri, I love this, SUCH an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing, I'm going to have a really big think about what Nina Paley says and all the implications of it. What do you think about her argument?
I won’t pretend to resolve the situation as presented. I would suggest that “to collaborate or not to collaborate is the question”. If the respective artists do not wish to participate then that work should be excluded. Since we live in such a media rich society, these kinds of problems are only going to continue.
Who owns the copyright to surveillance footage? This can only get more complicated.
Thanks Harold, 'to collaborate or not to collaborate' is an interesting way of thinking about it. But I also think (and from my own experience) lesser known artists are less likely to be able to collaborate with the big hitters. They just aren't interested / money gets in the way.
Knowing those on both sides of the issue it’s hard to imagine how this will resolve easily. If you look at infringement as a whole, it goes on daily but usually doesn’t reach litigation until there is significant money involved. Some creators who can afford to will do it on principle. If this is ever resolved it will probably be in the form of some copyright law which will be complicated by international and country specific regulations. Any sort of derivative work will have problems going forward. In short I don’t have an answer.
As Prince is the one who is profiting big time from someones creative work, I feel he should make the gesture of crediting the photographer. Or even come to some agreement to give a percentage of the sales out of moral duty, or does morality not come into the art world!
Ha, good question Pauline! We are mostly all bounded by morals in our actions, but having watched Richard Prince speak about his practice I'm not sure he is particularly...
I’ll have a lot more to say about this, maybe after I get back from Chichicastenango, where they make art. For the time being: I would find the smugness and arrogance of this discourse nauseating if I had hadn’t spent much of my life putting up with it from philosophers and art-world people far more qualified and sophisticated to spout it out. Hasta la vista.
Paul, you and I have exchanged ideas and views here on Substack in the past. I am happy to do so again but only if those exchanges are respectful, even if we disagree.
I wasn't talking about your post, let alone about you, but about the discourse surrounding this issue. But I'll be glad not to exchange with you again since you seem to feel threatened. It's a distraction.
Ha, ok, sorry Paul I misunderstood you! Your message sounded like it was directed personally at me. I'm not threatened, I would just like to have decent exchanges in this space. Sometimes messages don't land how we intend.
As an artist - while appreciating that the essence of art history is the ever evolving dialogue between artworks, I agree that the bottom line is about crediting your sources. What is the harm in deepening the conversation with this background information? Surely it only enriches all parties? Not crediting is the difference between homage and theft, oiled as ever by bullshit and bravado. When the original artist is still alive and could financially profit from being credited, not to is just cruel.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lucy. I am in agreement that crediting your sources is a good way to operate, but just playing devil's advocate here -- what if they come back to you and say 'no sorry you can't use this'? Your work can't exist? That's when creativity is stifled isn't it?
May 24, 2023·edited May 24, 2023Liked by Dr Victoria Powell
A really interesting article showing both sides of the argument and some of the machinations of copyright law. I feel sorry for the original photographers but see the validity of what R Prince is doing.
What a compelling post! I've been following the Warhol/Prince story and wanted to spend more time looking at it. Thank you so much for this historicized and in depth consideration. You bring up some powerful examples. Of course, it's an issue that is not black and white, but I agree with the comments you quote from Justice Kagan...some of the US Justices could 'go back to school' on a few things in my opinion, but art is surely one of them that could perhaps open their eyes to the world a bit more. I also thought of Ed Sheeran's recent legal battles with the commonality of chords during your last comments (vs sampling or stealing). I find the dialogue of art to be a unifying experience as well as an important way we can learn about the world. I would err on the side of allowing these artistic conversations; I think the benefits of what we can gain by pushing ideas further outweigh the risks, although compensation when appropriate and possible can also be part of the solution.
I've just listened to the podcast and will go back through the media more. I really enjoy reading your articles in this way and get more out of it this way.
Thanks so much for your lovely words on the podcast/article combo. You might be my most dedicated follower to do the double whammy, Kate. I also agree that the benefits of pushing outweigh the risks, and I'm on board with fair use. I am thinking particularly of the Shepard Fairey / Obama Hope poster that never would have existed without his grabbing a photo on the internet and mocking it up quickly into a street art poster. He got taken to court too and from what he says the stress of it caused his world to fall apart.
May 24, 2023·edited May 24, 2023Liked by Dr Victoria Powell
Prince strikes me as a glorified art thief bullshitting his way through the exploitation of the grey areas of the law. "His own unique contribution" my foot. I majored in graphic design and we were explicitly trained to bullshit clients (which is why I don't work in the field); this is exactly what I'm hearing here. This is not plagiarism, where you copy another person's work in your own production and it's a lot harder to draw a line (and we're usually talking about drawing from a photo or similar), this is unambiguously taking someone's actual work and doing just enough to get away with it. No well-intentioned person takes and sells someone else's image without at least crediting the original maker. If he had the decency of doing that, and/or wasn't so blatantly after his own profit (is he sharing his profits with the actual authors of the images he is nothing without? Didn't think so), I might feel differently, but he's not an artist, just another conman using the system against itself to exploit others with impunity. Just because it's (barely) legal doesn't mean it's moral. Ideas are a dime a dozen and art is not about being clever, though this seems to be the only thing the public understand in these days where everyone wants to be called an artist without doing any work. Frankly this disgusts me, and the fact the art world is all too happy to enable and reward immoral harmful behaviour because they project all sorts of artsy ideas onto it is equally disgusting and why the whole thing has become a closed and self-devouring environment.
Thanks for your thoughts on this Joumana. Richard Prince is definitely an artist whom other artists either LOVE or HATE. This video features 5 artists talking about his influence on them - really interesting to hear some artists wax lyrical: https://channel.louisiana.dk/video/5-artists-on-richard-prince
I agree with you that art is not about being clever, but I'm not sure he is trying to be clever. You might not think his work is interesting, and that's fair enough. I do actually think he challenges audiences on many levels - including ideas about the limits of what is acceptable - and I'm prepared to give those ideas some reflection. I'm very open to conceptual art though, and that's how I approach his work.
As for his appropriation of other artists' work, it seems right to bash that out on a case by case basis, which is what is happening, because I do believe in the fair use doctrine.
Thanks for all you say here, Tim. Really interesting to have your perspective from a writing point of view. I agree completely as a fellow-writer. You know the bounds of what you can and can't pluck, adapt, borrow - or at least how you need to change it to make it acceptable (to yourself and others). The issue is definitely made so much more problematic because of the money aspect. I like your analogy with him cutting and pasting writing on Substack. That would for sure be a problem.
Definitely feeling both sides of the argument on this one, probably because of being half human and half consumer! The human in me says ‘we must be free to do the work that artists are here to do regardless of what that entails’ and the consumer in me says ‘yeah...but...money and recognition.’ Listening to the podcast, I was interested in the idea of transforming something through changing its context rather than substantially physically changing the original image - I think this is a valid form of transformation (but probably harder for people to accept because of materialistic habits). I also think it’s good for artists to challenge each other’s work. I suppose the real issue in this for me is how it highlights the way that creative output is processed through our societal frameworks. I’d say part of Prince’s work is to do with that and so I think it’s necessary that he gets himself pulled into the courtroom. Do we limit our relationship with art, and therefore its power, because of how society functions?
I agree with all you say here Katie. I think it's good for artists to challenge each other's work. The meaning of art always changes as contexts change, and Prince is testing all sorts of boundaries with his work even though when he talks about it he says absolute banalities. I can see how he infuriates people. I think your question is a valid one, and it would be interesting to see a complete overhaul of approach to thinking about art and ownership. But that feels like a utopian project and impossible within our current structures. Maybe it will change as AI and the internet develop. One of the GC's readers posted a really interesting TED talk about other ways of thinking about fair use which you might be interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc
Thanks for this, I’ll take a look. And yes, it’s a long-term project looking at the ways we function and how to adjust them for something better. ‘Better’ of course, being something not everyone can agree on!! As a consolation, I’m finding that life’s a bit of a French braid - you speak out and allow it to intertwine in everything else that’s going on, with the important thing being the speak out 😊
Love this French braid analogy!
From a personal perspective I made a large piece using an image of a dress from a 1980’s magazine. I was interested in the shape and the line of the dress and was commenting on the representtion of women in media. The image was de-identified but the shape and pattern of the fabric remained. I sold the piece at an exhibition and it wasn’t until afterwards when I was reviewing photographs that I realised that the dress itself could be recognisable as a design by a well known designer. Fortunately, I haven’t ever shared the photographs and but I was startled that I didn’t realise that my appropriation of the image might be construed as breaching copyright. It’s a weird constraint to manage when the concept requires appropriation.
Amanda this is a really good example of the problem. We are all rooted in our shared visual culture and we accumulate a library of references - shapes, forms, lines, images, colours - in our minds. Elements of these will inevitably appear in art.
I do appreciate that it's a thorny issue. Like many things the abuse was hurtful and excessive (of artists material) and now the retaliation is also...
How would you feel as a writer if your words (say the paper you're most proud of) were copied verbatim without reference to you as the author? Similar hurt?
I'd definitely be annoyed if it had any sort of official 'published article' stamp on it for sure.
As far as I understand in the Lynn Goldsmith v Andy Warhol Foundation case Goldsmith was credited by Andy Warhol and she licensed him to create an artwork from her original photo for Vanity Fair years ago. So this case is all about a one-time agreement/payment. In which case there seems to be a more legible licensing issue here. But it doesn't seem that Prince credits or pays anyone. Just not sure what I think about that, because I actually think his work is really interesting. It does make me think and the meanings in his artworks do shift from the original. Really torn.
Thanks for your thoughts Helen, and yes I know exactly what you mean about feeling on the one hand and then on the other, so to speak.
In the Goldsmith v Warhol case, yes that's what I understood too about that specific case. But the general ruling has implications that will be felt more widely.
Credit where credit is due! Is probably my starting point on this.
I keep thinking about our human need to be ‘given credit’ and why it’s so valuable. For example, having credit attached to something is directly related to privileges of gravitas and money.
I suppose it’s all complicated by that ambiguous fact that two people viewing the same image have different perceptions depending on their role. From a psychological perspective it’s self interest then fairness that happens before the appraisal takes place.
There’s also this fascinating idea that our biases and framing of a situation fades our ethical response too so no matter how hard we try to be ethical when we look at something like this we are silently being tripped up along the way by our unconscious.
It does look to me like obvious change is easier to pass off as new art, but shouldn’t every artist be credited in that process?
This is interesting. Yes you can clearly see this self-interest/fairness argument playing out very loudly from many artists. But then on the other side the viewers who don't have anything to gain financially are less engaged in those dynamics (although often see the injustice of it).
We have this bias of a ‘just world hypothesis’ in other words, people get what they deserve. It’s just one way in which we are appraising events and people, and trying to establish if our social norms are being upheld or broken
We could say that people who view art, love art, create art are deeply interested in any attempt to socially undermine those norms. Social undermining can happen in many ways, and be fuelled by protest or bullying tactics.
When I think about it this way, is the artist trying to be truly innovative and push the boundaries of an institution with rules? provoke debate or perhaps they are just taking credit because they weighed up the risks and reward and it seemed fair game?
I’d imagine for the artists who are not credited it can be disorientating to suddenly find their work appropriated in this way. Isn’t that a form of manipulation?
I suspect that the wriggle room of what is ‘artistic interpretation’ as a social norm within art allows credit takers to hide in plain sight, this artist seems to have just taken that brief and run with it. The art speaks to me as a challenge in that respect, it’s egging the viewer on to reach a judgement.
Yes, although if you listen to Richard Prince speak he's definitely not got such a clever explanation. He's a bit like Andy Warhol in the nonchalant, flippant way he talks about his work.
I recently explored a similar topic “Everything is a Remix” which you might enjoy: https://kenshostudio.substack.com/p/everything-is-a-remix
Thanks! Loved your article
I'm going to toss this in the mix. I think it's a fresh perspective. Nina Paley on copyright. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc
Oh WOW Terri, I love this, SUCH an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing, I'm going to have a really big think about what Nina Paley says and all the implications of it. What do you think about her argument?
I think her argument is very compelling. And considering the films and art she makes, it makes sense. She's a master at what she does.
I need to find out more about her, definitely. Thanks for putting me on her track!
I won’t pretend to resolve the situation as presented. I would suggest that “to collaborate or not to collaborate is the question”. If the respective artists do not wish to participate then that work should be excluded. Since we live in such a media rich society, these kinds of problems are only going to continue.
Who owns the copyright to surveillance footage? This can only get more complicated.
Thanks Harold, 'to collaborate or not to collaborate' is an interesting way of thinking about it. But I also think (and from my own experience) lesser known artists are less likely to be able to collaborate with the big hitters. They just aren't interested / money gets in the way.
Knowing those on both sides of the issue it’s hard to imagine how this will resolve easily. If you look at infringement as a whole, it goes on daily but usually doesn’t reach litigation until there is significant money involved. Some creators who can afford to will do it on principle. If this is ever resolved it will probably be in the form of some copyright law which will be complicated by international and country specific regulations. Any sort of derivative work will have problems going forward. In short I don’t have an answer.
Yes, I agree with all you say Harold
As Prince is the one who is profiting big time from someones creative work, I feel he should make the gesture of crediting the photographer. Or even come to some agreement to give a percentage of the sales out of moral duty, or does morality not come into the art world!
Ha, good question Pauline! We are mostly all bounded by morals in our actions, but having watched Richard Prince speak about his practice I'm not sure he is particularly...
I’ll have a lot more to say about this, maybe after I get back from Chichicastenango, where they make art. For the time being: I would find the smugness and arrogance of this discourse nauseating if I had hadn’t spent much of my life putting up with it from philosophers and art-world people far more qualified and sophisticated to spout it out. Hasta la vista.
Paul, you and I have exchanged ideas and views here on Substack in the past. I am happy to do so again but only if those exchanges are respectful, even if we disagree.
I wasn't talking about your post, let alone about you, but about the discourse surrounding this issue. But I'll be glad not to exchange with you again since you seem to feel threatened. It's a distraction.
Ha, ok, sorry Paul I misunderstood you! Your message sounded like it was directed personally at me. I'm not threatened, I would just like to have decent exchanges in this space. Sometimes messages don't land how we intend.
As an artist - while appreciating that the essence of art history is the ever evolving dialogue between artworks, I agree that the bottom line is about crediting your sources. What is the harm in deepening the conversation with this background information? Surely it only enriches all parties? Not crediting is the difference between homage and theft, oiled as ever by bullshit and bravado. When the original artist is still alive and could financially profit from being credited, not to is just cruel.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lucy. I am in agreement that crediting your sources is a good way to operate, but just playing devil's advocate here -- what if they come back to you and say 'no sorry you can't use this'? Your work can't exist? That's when creativity is stifled isn't it?
A really interesting article showing both sides of the argument and some of the machinations of copyright law. I feel sorry for the original photographers but see the validity of what R Prince is doing.
Thanks Julian, yes I'm intrigued by the complexity of fair use - it's not an easy field for judges to navigate. I can also see both sides.
What a compelling post! I've been following the Warhol/Prince story and wanted to spend more time looking at it. Thank you so much for this historicized and in depth consideration. You bring up some powerful examples. Of course, it's an issue that is not black and white, but I agree with the comments you quote from Justice Kagan...some of the US Justices could 'go back to school' on a few things in my opinion, but art is surely one of them that could perhaps open their eyes to the world a bit more. I also thought of Ed Sheeran's recent legal battles with the commonality of chords during your last comments (vs sampling or stealing). I find the dialogue of art to be a unifying experience as well as an important way we can learn about the world. I would err on the side of allowing these artistic conversations; I think the benefits of what we can gain by pushing ideas further outweigh the risks, although compensation when appropriate and possible can also be part of the solution.
I've just listened to the podcast and will go back through the media more. I really enjoy reading your articles in this way and get more out of it this way.
Thanks so much for your lovely words on the podcast/article combo. You might be my most dedicated follower to do the double whammy, Kate. I also agree that the benefits of pushing outweigh the risks, and I'm on board with fair use. I am thinking particularly of the Shepard Fairey / Obama Hope poster that never would have existed without his grabbing a photo on the internet and mocking it up quickly into a street art poster. He got taken to court too and from what he says the stress of it caused his world to fall apart.
Prince strikes me as a glorified art thief bullshitting his way through the exploitation of the grey areas of the law. "His own unique contribution" my foot. I majored in graphic design and we were explicitly trained to bullshit clients (which is why I don't work in the field); this is exactly what I'm hearing here. This is not plagiarism, where you copy another person's work in your own production and it's a lot harder to draw a line (and we're usually talking about drawing from a photo or similar), this is unambiguously taking someone's actual work and doing just enough to get away with it. No well-intentioned person takes and sells someone else's image without at least crediting the original maker. If he had the decency of doing that, and/or wasn't so blatantly after his own profit (is he sharing his profits with the actual authors of the images he is nothing without? Didn't think so), I might feel differently, but he's not an artist, just another conman using the system against itself to exploit others with impunity. Just because it's (barely) legal doesn't mean it's moral. Ideas are a dime a dozen and art is not about being clever, though this seems to be the only thing the public understand in these days where everyone wants to be called an artist without doing any work. Frankly this disgusts me, and the fact the art world is all too happy to enable and reward immoral harmful behaviour because they project all sorts of artsy ideas onto it is equally disgusting and why the whole thing has become a closed and self-devouring environment.
Thanks for your thoughts on this Joumana. Richard Prince is definitely an artist whom other artists either LOVE or HATE. This video features 5 artists talking about his influence on them - really interesting to hear some artists wax lyrical: https://channel.louisiana.dk/video/5-artists-on-richard-prince
I agree with you that art is not about being clever, but I'm not sure he is trying to be clever. You might not think his work is interesting, and that's fair enough. I do actually think he challenges audiences on many levels - including ideas about the limits of what is acceptable - and I'm prepared to give those ideas some reflection. I'm very open to conceptual art though, and that's how I approach his work.
As for his appropriation of other artists' work, it seems right to bash that out on a case by case basis, which is what is happening, because I do believe in the fair use doctrine.
Thanks Billie. I agree. I can see both sides.
Thanks for all you say here, Tim. Really interesting to have your perspective from a writing point of view. I agree completely as a fellow-writer. You know the bounds of what you can and can't pluck, adapt, borrow - or at least how you need to change it to make it acceptable (to yourself and others). The issue is definitely made so much more problematic because of the money aspect. I like your analogy with him cutting and pasting writing on Substack. That would for sure be a problem.
Yes I had heard about his row with Emily R. He really gets up people's noses. He's like marmite, people love him or hate him.
I do find the New Portraits project compelling, and I like your idea of a non-professional portrait show!