Photographer Patrick Carriou successfully sued the "appropriation artist" Richard Prince for Prince's use of Carriou's photographs in eight works of "appropriation art" which sold for a total of over ten million dollars.(1) The result of the suit was a ruling that "[Richard Prince] shall..deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as [Carriou] determines, all infringing copies."(2) The second result was a stream of commentaries. The positions of these commentaries, either in favor or in opposition to the result of the case, seemed to be decided mostly based on what the author thought about Prince's art.
The infringement of copyright in the production of art mostly hinges upon whether the use was transformative-- transforming the original meaning through commentary-- or derivative-- relying on the purpose of the original without making a commentary on it. Upon first seeing Prince's work I assumed Prince was making some kind of commentary on the anonymity of the subjects of anthropological photos and the importance of context. (A good comparison between Prince's work and Carriou's original is here). I set about preparing to write a commentary along these lines.
Then I read this in the documents of the case:
"Prince testified that he has no interest in the original meanings of the photographs he uses....Prince testified that he 'doesn't really have a message' he attempts to communicate when making art. In creating the paintings Prince did not intend to comment on any aspects of the original works or on the broader culture." (3)Wait wait wait................REALLY!? No, really!? THIS is what he said?
