Sounds like derivative work to me. Not that I agree with it. And $3.4M for giant photos of bits of ads? Where do I get in line for THAT gravy train? Foolishness knows no bounds.
I read that The Philip Morris Company owns the photographs and that means there will likely be no challenge on infringement and that set’s up a horrible precedent for photography. Maybe another use like this will come around to change that.
i hope this one was sold by an early collector and is not a withheld print by the artist. so someone else than the “artist” is making the money.
its not unusual that artists having given away all their early work are not earning a cent while their works are selling like hot cakes.
Comments 6
Ridicuf***inglis
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 6:53 am ¶How come this isn’t copyright infringement by Prince? Surely he has created (I use that term loosely) a derivative work?
I think the world has gone fecking mad…..
J
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 8:00 am ¶Sounds like derivative work to me. Not that I agree with it. And $3.4M for giant photos of bits of ads? Where do I get in line for THAT gravy train? Foolishness knows no bounds.
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 10:10 am ¶I read that The Philip Morris Company owns the photographs and that means there will likely be no challenge on infringement and that set’s up a horrible precedent for photography. Maybe another use like this will come around to change that.
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 10:26 am ¶i hope this one was sold by an early collector and is not a withheld print by the artist. so someone else than the “artist” is making the money.
its not unusual that artists having given away all their early work are not earning a cent while their works are selling like hot cakes.
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 10:44 am ¶There are other ways to set a precedent. Anyone know any loan sharks with extra time on their hands?
[Reply]
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 2:44 pm ¶Post a Comment