Work from Prince's infringing series incorporating Cariou's photographs
In Cariou v. Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, et al 08 CV 11327 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2011)(Batts, J.), the court issued a decision finding Richard Prince's artworks to be copyright infringements. Prince, known as an "appropriation artist" took Cariou's photographs from a book called Yes, Rasta.
The opinion is noteworthy and will basically EXPLODE the contemporary art world, which has invested heavily in Richard Prince and his appropriations. The opinion notes that Prince thinks his artworks are pretty meaningless, but the owners of his artworks will probably mobilize art and cultural critics to supply a deeper meaning pronto. Perhaps in future litigation Prince will become more articulate about the nature of his artistic vision, as did artist Jeff Koons whose early losses have now been turned into wins based in part by affidavits certifying that his art does indeed have a message more pleasing to judicial ears.
More on this case, including images here. More on appropriation art here. A Photo Editor opines here.
Does the price of a Prince work go up after this decision?
Here is the decision:
Cariou v Richard Prince
March 22, 2011 update:
More commentary from Ruling Imagination here.
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here