Partner
Before snapping that photo of your delicious and ornately plated vegan omelet, make sure you get the light right. Get the proper angle, make sure the omelet is in a good mood—don’t be lazy! Why? Well, because that picture may be worth up to $90,000. We’re as surprised as you are. But instead of letting the excitement of a potential five-figure pay out fill you with joy, give anger a try, because you wont see a dime of that money. Instead, renowned artist infamous infringer Richard Prince will pocket that 90 large after blowing up the photo and adding a couple of fake Instagram captions. Genius!
Click here for a great BGR story on the topic.
This sounds illegal and it very well may be. At the outset it looks like blatant copyright infringement. In the US, copyrights are automatically granted simultaneous with creation. So all that work you did to make sure your vegan omelet looked as digitally delectable as it did in on your plate, probably earns you some decent legal protection for your photo. If someone was to take it and say . . . sell it for $90,000, you’d have a nice little lawsuit to file.
But Prince is no stranger to lawsuits. In 2011 he was sued for very similar infringement, and in 2013, the Second Circuit found Prince’s work constituted “Fair Use,” expanding the affirmative defense beyond the limits most scholars thought it could reach. See Cariou v. Prince, 714 F. 3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013). In that case, Prince took photographs of Rastafarians from a book owned and copyrighted by Patrick Cariou, added some flair of his own (as seen below), and sold the artwork for millions.
While the Fair Use test is historically and infamously unpredictable, fact-intensive, and subject to a lot of judicial discretion, the seemingly minor changes Prince made to Cariou’s work changed the landscape of Fair Use, at least in the Second Circuit.
Now Prince has taken it further. Artists are supposed to push boundaries, but should they constantly be pushing legal boundaries? Should they build careers off of other people’s creative work? One can assume a new lawsuit will be filed against Prince, and his chance to win this time around appears to be worse.
For more information about how to protect your own creative work, feel free to contact us at: https://revisionlegal.com/#contact.
The answer to this question is complex and nuanced. In the last decade or so, it has become fashionable to insist there is some stark dichotomy between what a trademark is and what a brand is. But the difference is not as stark as some marketers would like you to believe. The traditional definition of […]
Read more about Is a “Trademark” the Same Thing as a “Brand”?
The Circle R and the TM symbols both relate to trademarks and both can be physically placed on products, packaging, advertising materials, websites, etc. The Circle R symbol is an “R” enclosed in a circle (®). While both are trademark-related symbols, there are different eligibility requirements for use, meanings, and implications. Here is a quick […]
Read more about Trademarks: What is the Difference Between the Circle R and TM Symbols?
E-commerce businesses must comply with federal and State-level advertising laws and regulations. This is true of any business. But e-commerce businesses face special challenges because there is a whole array of potential methods of innocently, accidentally, or intentionally violating advertising laws. These include the potential to engage in false and deceptive advertising practices, such as […]
Read more about Is Your E-Commerce Advertising in Compliance With Existing Laws?