It would appear that we’re not allowed to post links in our comments, so my citations are incomplete. To access the link containing the article I referenced first, type “Q&A with Appropriation Artist Richard Prince” in the search engine of your choice. The definition of beachcombers was found at Dictionary.com.

I also disagree that “The value of a Richard Prince re-photograph has nothing to do with what’s depicted in the photograph.” To quote Prince himself, “But at Time-Life, I was working with seven or eight magazines, and Marlboro had ads in almost all of them. Every week, I’d see one and be like, ‘Oh, that’s mine. Thank you.’ It’s sort of like beachcombing.” [1] Uh… no, it’s not. Beach combing is making a living by “collecting salable articles of jetsam, refuse, etc., from beaches.” [2] Jetsam, refuse and the like are things no one wants, discarded items; as in “one man’s trash.” Those famous images are not generally considered refuse. Also, referring to the images he’d find weekly, how were they “his?” Did he hire Jim Krantz and the other photographers to take those photos for him? No. Did he own any of the copyrights? No. Did he even own the magazines from which he shot them? No. So what about them made them his? Granted, Krantz does not own the copyrights either, but Prince did not credit him, and apparently does not credit other original photographers either. The value of his images would be nothing without the original value of the original image. He didn’t chose mundane or poorly shot photographs, he chose images he knew would strike a chord in viewers, a chord that was originally struck by other talented photographers. While I agree we should have the right to re-photograph images, I do not believe that we should do so without at least crediting the original photographer. Just because we have the right to do so doesn’t mean that we are justified in being rude. He may not find it offensive that others appropriate HIS so-called art, but there are those of us who put a lot of work into capturing timeless images, and whether we retain the copyrights to them or not, at least deserve credit for them when someone profits by copying them, especially without prior consent.

[1] Rosenburg, Karen. “Artist: Richard Prince.” May 21st, 2005. New York Art. Sept. 25th, 2009.
[2] “beachcombers.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 25 Sep. 2009. .

ABOUT TIME !!!!!!

http://cityfile.com/dailyfile/3770

While “the” cowboy may be iconic, that is not what is at issue here. The issue here is appropriation (theft) of something belonging to someone else. In this case, it was not the photographer – it had always been a policy of Marlboro and its parent company to procure the copyright to the images created for their campaigns. There was no way Marlboro was going to see Richard Prince’s work as a problem. They couldn’t pay for the amount of publicity generated.

“Also, back then there was no Internet, Napster etc, and people were not as conscious about copyright infringement as we are today.”

Actually, they were – dating all the way back to our very prescient founding fathers who first created the laws. While it is likely the general public was uneducated about copyright (they still are), I would bet Richard Prince knew exactly what he was doing.

“Richard Prince also spend a lot of time sifting through those tearsheats at Time Warner where he worked to pay the bills and is now making his buck selling his large prints to decorate the mansions of the people who make money out of convincing other people to kill themselves, among other enterprises.”

This has to be the worst, but the most amusing argument I’ve ever heard in favor of infringement.

All that wonderful writing…and yet you miss the point. The argument about the concept of owning the American cowboy is irrelevant and not the point of contention.
The point is simply who owns your images…you or someone else who would reproduce them and make money from them. The answer has already been established by Congress and many court cases. The answer is you own your photographs unless you sell the rights….the concept is called intellectual property.

Oh, oh, It’s so easy to bash under the mantle of anonimity.

My two cents on this discussion:

First of all, the american cowboy is not property of Sam Abell or Marlboro or Phillip Morris, or Richard Prince. It’s a popular icon. It’s nobody’s property. Once you have somebody paying for a crew to scout a location, cast a model, choose the clothing, lug your photo equipment, art direct the whole thing and pay for a nice dinner to celebrate the wrap, photographing guy on a yellow raincoat riding a horse through a valley doesn’t make you a hero, especially if the whole thing is orchestrated to get more people to smoke their asses off to death.

Second of all, it’s not like Richard Prince woke up one day and said: I’m going to make millions duping advertisements. His career started just like all of us, some initial motivation, going to college, struggling to get started etc. Initially this pictures were not even looked at, nobody wanted them. Also, back then there was no Internet, Napster etc, and people were not as conscious about copyright infringement as we are today. Didn’t we all record cassettes from friends’ records? My self, I once charged my neighbors a small fee to watch a movie on Betamax. So calling the guy a thief is a little bit exaggerated.

Sam Abell spend a lot of time taking the pictures and made his buck “selling” to Marlboro the american cowboy so they could persuade people to kill themselves, Richard Prince also spend a lot of time sifting through those tearsheats at Time Warner where he worked to pay the bills and is now making his buck selling his large prints to decorate the mansions of the people who make money out of convincing other people to kill themselves, among other enterprises.

It’s call capitalism, and we’re all part of it.

So let’s take it easy.

– CJ

Anyone that thinks of or describes Prince as an artist really needs to rethink that. Is he an artist? Really? Really?

If Prince is an artist, than so is any monkey at the local zoo that mimics a patron waving at said monkey. At least the monkey has integrity as an artist…he didn’t steal anything that was legally protected by copyright!

But by you definition Rob, he’s every bit the artist you are….and he’s probably more intelligent.

Only in early 2000′s could someone concoct the warped notion, that by stealing someone’s intellectual property, regardless of whether or not the thief profits from it, that we should be overjoyed that he stole from someone. His illegal act allows us as photographers to do what we do every day…??? Really?…Really? What wonderful twisted logic.

The fact is Rob, if I photograph you for an ad I need to get your release. Now lets say we do that and then someone rephotographs our image and places it on a web site instead of a museum wall and writes a piece that elaborately convicts you of being a child molester. Why, I can hear you cheering from here.

Look dimwit, by your warped logic, we all should be able to photograph paper money and reproduce it at will. Try it…I’ll visit you in Leavenworth and see how thrilled you are.

Put the pipe down dude…it’s really screwing up your thought process.

@91 Since I don’t have to choose, it’s nice that we can own and live with monographs from both Abell and Prince. If I did have to choose, it’d probably be Abell, but I can’t say for sure.

it’s a sad world, and this is not at all surprising.

Something to think about. What if someone goes and photographs the Mona Lisa, or Malevich’s Black Square, or Manet’s Olympia (a piece that has been imitated by artists forever.) Then turns around and sells it? I guess people do, it’s called posters or art 101 books. I guess my problem is this is nothing new. So why has it sold for so much money? Personally, I will never make that amount of money ever if i save and work everyday of my life without spending a penny. (Newspapers) So maybe I’m an outsider. Maybe the wine I drink isn’t good enough. So for that, I say these people can have their fucking fictitious world and if this makes them happy and able to ramble on about how it makes their nipples hard interpreting some thing, then by all means, go for it. So I guess Prince won the shouting match. Because he’s not the first one to photograph a photograph. That’s not my main issue.

I think photography has a hard time progressing when we judge it on a person’s name and not the content of the photograph. And with name inherently comes style. I know I know, this goes against everything in the world that defines a photographer as being unique and sticking out in a crowd.

You know when you say something, like a joke, and maybe not everyone heard it, but then some ass hole who did hear it takes it as his/her own and repeats it so that other people can hear and gets the credit. I feel like this is sort of similar. And that one guy, who originally said the joke would probably be classified in the 99.99999% of the people who are imitators while the asshole makes the cut.

If someone blows themself up, it has an impact too. But it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the “right” thing to do. I guess it’s based on perspective and the question of right and wrong.

Does the guy on the horse have to sign a model release?

Everything comes from something else, duh. To say that 99.999999 percent of the people on here are mere imitators completely undermines the argument of art itself. All artists, even the most famous have imitated another person. I’m sure a lot of amazing photographers in the world will go unnoticed because of financial, personal, or other reasons out of one’s control. That whole thing on insignificant people is bullshit. Everyone has a story and everyone is significant.

I guess I don’t buy the right to outright copy other people’s work; I believe in being inspired, but not appropriation. So Prince makes bank but Sam gave us the gift of his moment. Whose work fuels us to create and for what purpose? what intention? Art? Money? Inspiration? A record of a place in time? If I had the choice I’d rather have tea with Sam’s or a sit down with a book of his work. Sam’s work makes me want to go out into the world and SEE it anew.

“But there is more to a fine photograph than information. We are also seeking to present an image that arouses the curiosity of the viewer or that, best of all, provokes the viewer to think–to ask a question or simply to gaze in thoughtful wonder. We know that photographs inform people. We also know that photographs move people. The photograph that does both is the one we want to see and make. It is the kind of picture that makes you want to pick up your own camera again and go to work. – Sam Abell, Seeing and Shooting Straight by Sam Abell

I think Richard Prince’s “art” is crap, not original, does not make a statement (unless it’s rigorously explained and even then there’s a fair amount of head scratching). But he’s obviously studied very carefully the techniques and methods of P.T. Barnum and has himself at least 2 suckers.

I’m heading off to the bookstore to photograph some covers for my next art exhibit. Only 2 prints, please. Better odds than a lottery ticket?

I should tell you there is a flaw in your understanding of copyright law.

Let’s say Koons copies something of yours, RP does also. You are aware that Koons and RP has violated your copyright. However, as you feel this exposure is going to help you, you decide not to defend your copyright. Seeing this, I go out and in a similar way as Koons and RP I violate your copyright. Because you previously knew and didn’t defend your rights it will be much harder for you to stop me.

I’ve got to get back to real work but this has been fun.

Best.

@82: Ha ha. Sure glad I bought that Prince print early on before he blew up. Buzz away. ;) Always invest in the competition I guess.

It’s also apparent to me that the art community would enjoy nothing better than hanging pictures of cowboys and horses on their walls. They just need a way they find acceptable to accomplish that.

But Sam Abell has way greater mainstream name-recognition because of Richard Prince. Abell is a fantastic photographer and an erudite thinker and speaker. Lets see what he does with his elevated visibility in the mainstream media. I believe that doing what’s necessary to take care of one’s loved ones trumps pretty much everything else. But I have to say that coming from a man who has chosen to do business with the tobacco industry, his Golden Rule argument seems a bit … conspicuous.

I’m out for the evening. Thanks for all the interesting debate and viewpoints. And thanks, APE.

“I can’t say I’m worried about Richard Prince or Jeff Koons or anyone else doing something with his or her art that will somehow cut in to how much money I make shooting for a Neiman Marcus or a Cisco Systems or a Rolling Stone.

Are you?”

If I own the copyright to the photograph the answer is YES! I care. If someone else owns all rights to the image that is up to them. That’s the point.

Let’s use your point, Cisco purchases a stock image of yours. They purchase North Amer. rights for a full page mag. ad less than 1 million in circulation. RP rephotos a portion of your photograph from the ad and starts selling it. You didn’t give up your fine art sales rights. So you own the rights. You’re telling me you wouldn’t care? He gets millions you get nothing?