http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

I apologize if any of this has already been mentioned in above comments.

http://altphotoimages.blogspot.com/

I could make really beautiful artwork too if I took pictures of National Geographic magazines and blew them up the size of a wall, but I still have a soul.

It is broad sweeping, a low fee, and all the database files will be recorded properly.

It’s a little bit of a pain, but photographers should definitely take the time and register, register, register.

http://www.copyright.gov/eco/index.html

I have found the easiest (and most cost effective) registrations are via my published works (books), which include large collections of photographs. Series of photographs which are considered one body of work.

Fees drop considerably if you have your photographs organized into a structure like this. If they meet the copyright submission requirements, then it really is a beautiful thing.

Of course he encouraged it Prince makes millions off or wealthy that have nothing better to do with their money. If he ripped off one of my images and made millions with out my permission and license I’d drop kick his ass down Broadway.

Most art collectors would probably know that he “appropriated” someone’s art, but I’m not convinced that the majority of them could name the artist who originated the images (except the few cases where people have made a stink about it). Perhaps the select few who have the inclination and funds to buy a Prince work would do their research, but most wouldn’t.

I definitely think most tourists milling around in Chelsea on a weekend would not know whose work it is.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ04.pdf

This seems to really infuriate people, but as I like to say, “‘Nice’ is not in my job description.” As a much *wiser* man once said, “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.” There is much dreck and codswollop in this world and people need to be more assertive about pointing it out. My right to laugh at them is every bit as sacred as their right to say stupid things, and every bit as important.

Cloudgate was not in fact purchased with public funds, it was a gift to the city. Mr. Kapoor retains the copyright and the people who manage the rights *will* respond adversely to any attempt to commercially exploit images of it. However, it’s in a public space and non-commercial photographs are completely legal. You *do* need a permit for large-scale photography or cinematography in the park, and that caused some confusion at first – some people thought the permits conveyed a release or licensing rights, and they do not. The City doesn’t have the right to grant any such release or license. Other people thought that meant without a permit you couldn’t take pictures in the park, and that is likewise not true. The permits are just to prevent large-scale disruptions without due notice and to help pay for increased police presence when a permitted activity is taking place.

Actually, most photographers DON’T violate copyright law – that’s why most of us don’t get sued or draw criticism as frequently as Prince does. It’s all about the issue of origination.

To take your example, when you take a picture of a Chevy, nobody thinks the picture IS the Chevy, or that the picture was produced by Chevy.

The issue with Prince is that he is taking a 2 dimensional work and reproducing it in it’s entirety in an exact analogue and crediting himself as the originator of the work.

To further back up my point, if some other company started producing cars that looked exactly like Chevy and had a Chevy logo on the grill, then you can bet Chevy would take issue because the implication is that the faux-Chevy originated from the Chevrolet Motors Corporation. The logo falls under trademark law (a symbol connoting a source of origin) and patent law would cover the design of the car (a specific, original design, aka “invention” in patent-speak).

This was illustrated a couple years ago when a Chinese company showed a pretty close knockoff to a BMW at the Frankfurt car show, and that didn’t even have a BMW logo on it – it was just a very, very similar (read: knockoff) design.

I’d also heard about photographing the bean… absurdity. Why put it there if you don’t want people to take pictures of it? The ultimate in delusion.

There’s the whole I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it, to this.

And artists complaining about someone else’s art… doesn’t get much lamer than that.

Always a great idea to have the fine print reviewed! A more tempting method of action would be to have a Rep or Senator sponsor and introduce a new piece of legislation to protect GA photographers, which is current with the issues before us in contemporary society. Or at minimum, an amendment to current law. More teeth.

There is not a photographer living that doesn’t break the copyright law to some degree, usually daily.

A chevrolet, a cigarette, somebody mowing their lawn all have either copyright, trademarks, or personal use rights that a good lawyer (if there is any such thing as a good lawyer) can’t argue a compelling case.

Personally I think Richard Prince and his Monty Python effects are just middle of the road 1970’s graphic art but you have to hand it to him, he knows how to get publicity.

Regardless of his motivation as photographers we can’t have it both ways. We can’t scream copyright, ownership and plagerism and then turn and shoot everything that passes in front of our lens for free, just because we want to.

But does it really matter?

I really love Patrick Carious work. He has a very unique look and feel to the quality of his work. It has a beautiful poetic harmony.