
Richard Prince, the world’s highest-grossing “photographer” - pmcpinto
http://priceonomics.com/the-richest-photographer-in-the-world/
======
6stringmerc
Personal opinion as a lifelong artist, so take it with a grain of salt:

What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy
rip-off gutter dweller. He's essentially a fore-father for the mentality
perpetrated by "The Fat Jew" on Twitter, who is, rightfully, being excoriated
for making a business model of profit by way of theft. If Jeff Bezos or Elon
Musk wanted to achieve something useful in the space race, they'd find a way
to grab both those guys, shove them in a rocket on a one way trip to the moon,
broadcasting a camera feed back to Earth, and with just enough water to make
it there before they have to turn to cannabalism as a last resort before their
inevitable, well-deserved end.

By Richard Prince's logic, I should totally be entitled to steal his identity
and empty his bank account in the name of performance art. He doesn't believe
in copyright? Fine. I don't believe in the illegality of stealing from
thieves.

~~~
cerebrum
Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a
look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for.

Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big
bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just
selling overhyped garbage.

Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth
1 billion?

~~~
6stringmerc
Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody
else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth
millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in
spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized,
uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is
what fuels the hostility.

And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1
version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural
value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one
original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.

~~~
moron4hire
Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my
relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same
cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The
vegan would spend money to _not_ have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change
the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better
than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue
entirely.

~~~
tedks
Considering you felt the need to get this anti-vegan dig in when you could
have used literally any other example, it seems like you might think so as
well.

------
mikehearn
Important to note that his Instagram ripoffs haven't been tested in court. He
has prevailed in previous court cases with art pieces that had a stronger
"transformative" argument, which is a key aspect of fair use. This time the
infringement seems more clear-cut. He's not transforming anything, but merely
adding his own caption to an existing work. The original work is unaltered.

I was talking about this with a friend, and she said if that was sufficiently
transformative for fair use to apply, then one could simply write notes in the
margin of a book, call it art, and claim ownership of the book's contents.

~~~
mbrock
Indeed. But the ruling also claims transformation isn't necessary for fair use
and mentions other aspects. I also found it interesting to read the cited
judge who talked about the purpose of copyright and how it is not a God-given
right but a kludge to encourage creativity, like patents.

------
jrochkind1
The only thing I don't understand is why people pay millions for his work.
What a country!

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Because art has become a content-free upscale marketing exercise, and Prince
is very good at marketing himself.

Of course it's worthless as culture, but rich people buy art as an investment
and as store of value, and that only works past a certain price/name
threshold.

If you can persuade art buyers that your "work" will be worth even more a few
years from now, you can sell them anything at all.

It's not even appropriation art - it's purely a capitalist transaction, very
possibly a knowing and cynical one.

~~~
bweitzman
I don't think Prince is even that good at marketing. I think what makes his
work appealing as an investment is that a near infinite amount can be
generated whenever requested.

He's just a money printing machine

~~~
jrochkind1
I would think it's lack of scarcity would make it UNATTRACTIVE as an
investment. How much is your investment worth if he decides to print a
bazillion more tomorrow?

------
cconcepts
"When you go to an Art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy
cabinet of a few millionaires..." \- quote stolen from Banksy

~~~
at-fates-hands
While his art isn't in galleries, Banksy can certainly count himself among the
wealthiest of artists, despite his anti-capitalistic nature, he's still raking
in millions from his works.

~~~
infimum
the way i understand the quote it's not about the artist being rich but about
the owners of the art who are.

------
abakker
I'm pretty surprised that his work stands up as not infringement after Shepard
Fairey and the AP. It seems that his work was much more transformative than
what Prince is doing here, and yet he lost. I can't help but feel that the
real argument Prince has here is the money to pay better lawyers than the
people he "borrows" his work from. I think the result would be different if he
was snagging AP photos.

Also, I'm not sure whether this applies specifically to Prince, but this
clause in the instagram policy would seem to suggest that Prince is at least
violating Instagram's policy:

    
    
      The Service contains content owned or licensed by Instagram ("Instagram Content"). Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service. You will not remove, alter or conceal any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Instagram Content and you will not reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works based on, perform, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, sell, license or otherwise exploit the Instagram Content.

~~~
FireBeyond
Right. I have absolutely no doubt that there's precisely zero coincidence that
he doesn't do this to AP/Reuters/Getty images.

He may not "believe" in copyright (though it would be awesome if someone took
a photo of his "work" and what his reaction would be), but he sure as hell
knows that it wouldn't survive through court.

He just doesn't care, though. "Even if they didn't give me permission, I'd do
it anyway."

Such a rebel.

~~~
Terr_
> I have absolutely no doubt that there's precisely zero coincidence that he
> doesn't do this to AP/Reuters/Getty images.

If only some random user took one of those images, and then he re-stole it
without noticing until too late...

------
macmac
This is actually one of the few cases I have seen where I think "fair use" is
not fair. Most European copyright systems do not know the concept of "fair
use" and would have found his work as clearly derived from the originals and
therefore infringing.

------
pmoriarty
"ownership", like money, is a fiction that relies on consensus for its power.

The ease of reproduction, which photography heralded more than a hundred years
ago, only helps reveal this fiction to those still held in its thrall.

The cognitive dissonance between a nascent realization of lack of ownership
and the belief in the fiction of ownership causes outrage, particularly in
those who benefit from the fiction.

~~~
_petronius
Walter Benjamin would agree with you; but in an age when economic security
still means personal security, and creativity is one way of achieving economic
security, stealing other people's creativity is pretty low, and isn't a
cultural habit we should encourage.

~~~
pmoriarty
Whether theft of something no one owns is possible at all is the question.

As for achieving economic security off of making art, that is a reality only
for a very lucky and very tiny minority of artists. The overwhelming majority
of those who benefit from art are the middle men.

We should carefully consider as a society whether we want to enable the middle
men and a handful of lucky artists at the expense of almost all artists and
the rest of society, who could well benefit from free and unfettered access to
earlier cultural products.

------
rquantz
I think this video is relevant:
[http://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg](http://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg)

There is a common idea when faced with abstract or conceptual art that "I
could do that," or "my kid could do that." Usually though, you couldn't. I
don't find the arguments in the article very convincing – to my eye he appears
to be producing original works of art.

~~~
7952
Drawing with the lack of self conciousness that a child has is not easy!

~~~
rquantz
But children's paintings generally do not actually resemble abstract
paintings. They tend to lack things like depth and composition.

------
jawns
A couple of days ago, I noted my surprise that a person could be sued for
copyright infringement by quoting even a single line of a song:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934)

How the heck can Richard Prince's use of other people's works be considered
fair use if quoting a single line from a song is not considered fair use?

~~~
mbrutsch
Because of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a
picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted
thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos,
or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages").

If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take
a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.

Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I
take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.

As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does
copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine:

 _Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use.
In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and
the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.”_

A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered
infringement under the current copyright laws.

~~~
mbrutsch
> A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered
> infringement under the current copyright laws.

Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?

------
netrus
As everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him.
First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing
should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original
artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple
selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at.
Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but
noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does
something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it.
It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have
choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price
pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular
stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.

~~~
panzagl
As everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him.
First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing
should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original
artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple
selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at.
Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but
noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does
something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it.
It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have
choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price
pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular
stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.

~~~
bittercynic
Somehow it seems way more valuable the way you say it.

------
greydius
I think this is brilliant. Richard Prince is exactly the artist that the
people paying for his works deserve.

------
mbrock
I think his "work" is interesting. It asks questions just like Warhol's did.
And he makes money by "adding value" which by prevailing definition boosts the
economy—interesting!

Instagram itself does something comparable:

> By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the
> Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully
> paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete
> from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate
> such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the
> Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not
> shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram
> Services.

Both Prince and Instagram are protected by U.S. law.

Ads are part of public spaces. Appropriating them into artworks is a pretty
interesting thing to do, though of course the ad photographer union (so to
speak) will oppose it.

~~~
KaiserPro
Instagram is covered.

They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on
their behalf.

However, if you're not instagram and "new portraits" are not, then they do not
have a license. More importantly I don't think instgram has right to sub
license your content. So unless it is instagram selling these "art works" he's
breaking the law.

But, he's got more money than most of you, so good luck proving that.

~~~
mbrock
But the court explicitly judged that he is not breaking the law. He doesn't
need a contractual agreement—his work is "fair use." You can argue that he's
ethically wrong, but why do you say he's breaking the law?

~~~
chrismcb
One image, that he actually changed was judged as not breaking the law. Other
works, including the Instagram detours, were he merely added a quoted have not
been challenged. I personally don't think adding a quote is enough to
transform the work

------
blucoat
It seems like everyone here has this mentality that "of course he's evil, he's
a thief!" Can someone explain what actual harm this causes anyone? I think
it's ridiculous that people pay so much for his "work", but that's their
choice. It's not like people are going to him as an alternative to the
original source; if he didn't copy it, nobody would give a damn about the
original.

EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as aggressive, but somebody's downvoted me
without answering my question. I seriously want to know why his actions are so
terrible. What harm does this cause to anyone?

------
mjgoins
The scare quotes are not in the article title.

~~~
slfnflctd
They are, however, in the article itself.

There are so many easy ways I could make gobs of money if I threw ethics out
the window, and so few if I won't.

In my view this guy is a total assclown, and the "scare quotes" (I see them
more as mocking than scary here, but whatever) are well deserved.

------
scotty79
I'd like to see more people doing that. Maybe then it would become obvious
that monetary value of a creation has nothing to do with the creation but
rather with who sells it to whom.

Maybe when creators see that, they will stop living their dream that at some
point their things will magically sell and focus either on selling if they are
in it for the money or on creating if they are in it for creating. And
copyright will gradually become obsolete.

I think it would improve both selling and creating.

------
m-i-l
I know someone with a really similar name. He should take photos of the
Richard Prince ones in a gallery, add a caption or something to claim fair
use, and sell them as his-similar-name originals. Sounds like the key to
plausibility would be to sell e.g. 10 at $100K rather than 100K at $10, plus
it would be a lot less effort.

------
mr_luca
I would be interested to hear from an art historian or dealer why his work is
considered so important. The article lists other artists like Warhol who
appropriated found photos into their works. So if he wasn't the first, what
did he do so differently that makes his work so valuable?

------
debrisapron
Of course Joe & Jane Average's outraged howls of "it's not art!" are the
precise reason why Prince is so rich & awesome. What you think is a critique
is in fact the entire value proposition.

~~~
michael_h
I think very few people are exclaiming that "it's not art!". They're
exclaiming "he didn't create this".

------
tigeba
Still trying to determine if the Steve Jobs quote was intentional irony.

~~~
magic_beans
Same! I can't tell if the writer is a master of irony or really that dense.

I'm going with the former.

------
esharte
I get that a photograph can qualify as having it's own copyright. But what
he's done here is take a screenshot on iOS. Surely screenshots don't qualify
as photographs.

~~~
wavefunction
Generally reuse of copyrighted materials need to be transformative in some
way, and to many people following this artist he is not doing that.

Also, I don't like him or his concept of art. Maybe if he was donating most of
the proceeds to charity with enough to make a living.

------
shams93
Since art went conceptual the creativity is in the sales pitch rather than the
piece but this is also a case of someone who established themseleves long
before the internet its maddening to see these baby boomers get to live like
this we got these music and art industries closed off because these boomers
hate competition lol who wouldnt want to make money so easily lol.

------
S_A_P
At the end of the day, Richard has to live with himself and realize what he
has done...

------
Yhippa
Someone should just photograph his work, repackage it, and sell it. He would
be totally okay with that. Use something like Office Lens on your smartphone
to do your image transformation and print them on canvas.

~~~
adrianb
From the article:

So far, none of the women Prince stole images from have sued him -- but one of
them, a user by the name of “Missy Suicide”, has done something even better:
she’s begun selling (wait for it) photos of Prince’s photo of her original
photo. While Prince’s version sold for $90,000, she offers hers for a mere
$90; all proceeds have been donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a
nonprofit that fights to preserve digital content rights.

~~~
knughit
She is doing a cute stunt, but she isn't passing anything over Prince, Prince
doesn't sell pictures, he sells his name to art-market speculators.

------
Dwyane
I think its kinda bull...

