Copyright Infringement Case Against Richard Prince: Appropriation Art And Social Property

Copyright has been a long last discussion within the creative community. When it comes the ones own ideas and creations it can be frustrating to see others take credit for your creativity or hard work. Within the copyright infringement history there are several cases that have affected the art world and shaken the notion of what is art and what is not. For instance Andy Warhol´s famous Campbell’s soup, which ended up promoting Campbell’s product even more, hence, the corporation decided not to sue Warhol. However, there are cases in which an artist takes control over the work of another. Jeff Koons is another example “appropriating” other´s work, nevertheless, this time, other artist´s work such as Art Rogers. (Ellison, 2012)

The skill of
This paper will focus upon the copyright infringement case against Richard Prince´s social media representation and his exhibition at the renowned Gagosian Gallery through the discussion of social media, appropriation art and copyright law.

Richard Prince was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1949. Currently he lives in New York. (Prince, 2016) During the late 1970´s Prince became interested in the notion of photographing images that meant something and position then in an environment where their significance would change. Since then he starts photographing images previously presented in advertising campaigns such as the famous Marlboro man. (Cook, 1992) Everything Prince photograph seemed to become an iconic element of his work and popular culture.

His work articulates on notions about appropriation, originality, authenticity and postmodernism where he clearly enjoys juxtaposing drawings and language to send a crossed message of what the viewer can relate and what Prince is trying to convey. An example of a fellow artist who appropriates images that then intervenes through the addition of language is Barbara Kruger whom as Prince challenges the memories and connections the viewer has over a work of art based on the context in which it can be seen or
He has stated several times over the years that he does not care about this sort of legal issues. (Sharkey, 2016) Sometimes when asked about why he uses his artistic skills to copy other´s work the answer is that he does not have any artistic skills and that he only uses his camera to take pictures that he then prints in a commercial lab. (Sharkey, 2016) Prince has created a persona that represents to some the image of the opposite of an ideal artist. For Prince money and fame have always been on its mind. During the 80´s he was yet to find these elements through his 10-year career of appropriation art. In a desperate attempt to gain fame, Prince wrote a joke on a piece of paper stating “Would you buy this for $10 bucks?” This humor filled work led him to success. Prince continued to create art based on other´s work with no legal reprehend. Until a work series exhibited in the renowned Gagosian Gallery called “Canal Zone” in it, Prince presented a work by Patrick Cariou named “Yes Rasta” with some minor changes. Nevertheless, it was clear that the work was Cariou´s piece. Cariou filed a lawsuit against Prince and the gallery in 2008. (Sharkey, 2016) The lawsuit ended being solved as fair use, and Prince continued using other artist´s work to create his