RICHARD PRINCE
work in a series of "Panama Canal Zone»
Source: theartnewspaper.com

It appears that the trial between the artist, Richard Prince apropriatorom (Richard Prince), and photographer Patrick Cariou (Patrick Cariou) gradually turns into the biggest case of copyright in artistic photography in the last hundred years. Recall plot outline of the dispute: the end of 2008 at New York's Gagosian Gallery (Larry Gagosian) hosted an exhibition of works under the name Prince Canal Zone («Panama Canal Zone"), which exhibited paintings of Jamaican rastamanov. To create these works of the artist used photographs from the book Cariou Yes Rasta, published in 2000. In January 2009, Cariou sued Prince, accusing him of copyright infringement . Two years later, in March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the Prince guilty . All paintings in the possession of the artist and his dealer Gagosian, was ordered to seize and destroy.

However, Prince and Gagosian, and did not think to acknowledge his guilt and appealed to the federal appeals court in New York. decisions on it yet, you have apropriatora malomalsky have a chance to win. But suddenly on the side of Cariou made the "heavy artillery": the two largest trade associations (U.S. Council on Archives Image /PACA and the American Society of Media Photographers /ASMP), a number of photographic archives, and 7000 private photographers on Wednesday filed in the Court of Appeals of New York collective note of the case , which set out its views in support of Patrick. Association PACA represents giants in the field of licensing pictures - photobanks Corbis and Getty Images.

in their collective comments photobanks and archives talk about the apparent threat to freedom of expression artists. This trade association noted that it was in fact talking about the two artists, Prince and Cariou, and that copyright law does not see differences between different kinds of art works and their creators, it is the same for everyone. If the previous decision of the court in favor of Cariou would be canceled by the court of appeal, it will lead to serious economic consequences and changes relating to intellectual property rights, considered applicants note.

In turn, the defendants assert in their appeal statement that the Prince of "do not adversely affect the market works Cariou." Alterations Prince of the series "Canal Zone" sold 2.4 million apiece, and the photos are Cariou for only a few thousand dollars, so the "Prince of no way to reduce the incentive to Cariou creativity ».

Photographers and licensing agencies believe that the decision in favor of the Prince - the artist," who uses other people's work, but do not bother to give this permission and payment of the appropriate committee "- would harm all the photographers and photo agencies. Licensing gives them a livelihood, if the court reverse its decision, the U.S. guaranteed by the Constitution of the copyright will be infringed, that take away from photographers creativity and motivation to deprive them of support.

Getty and Corbis Photobank have tens of millions of images around the world, and although official data about their income theartnewspaper.com has not, in 2007, CNN Money magazine wrote that the total sales of these two agencies account for more than a billion dollars.

photographers taking away the economic incentive to create new works, the judge not only go against copyright law - "they actually kill the goose that lays the golden eggs", the same pictures that artists use apropriatory in their work. "The appellant, as they themselves admit, the works of Prince earned millions of dollars. No snapshots Cariou and other photographers who create original licensed image of the Prince's own would have never existed" - according to a note by photoassociation.

Prince, to his misfortune, confessed that he was not interested in the true sense of the work Cariou, he just wanted to create a "big picture, which would very well, look good." This is recognition of the impact on the selection of judges who decided that the Prince's work can not be called a "transformed" and therefore does not violate the law. To be considered as such, should serve as a commentary on the work and send the viewer to the original product, which is the case with the Prince's appropriation has not happened.

Prepared by Mary Onuchina, AI

Source: artinvestment.ru