Comment by mbrock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbrock | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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?

The article says it was ruled he wasn't breaking the law when it came to the modified “Yes Rasta” picture. Unless I missed it I don't think his Instagram "art" has been challenged in court.

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

How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value? The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.

The fact that we're talking about it shows that it's interesting on some level.

As it happens I was talking with my family last night about making money from photography and different business models, and then I stumbled on this article. So that's part of why I found it interesting.

I also think it's generally interesting the effects that happen when you put a different frame around something and show it in a different context. An art gallery room full of huge Instagram pictures is weirdly appealing to me. Warhol's soup cans, too.

By adding value I just mean that his work sells for millions while the stuff he "cites" doesn't. That's the free market... I don't make any ethical claims about that—I just think it's interesting (and kind of funny).

> protected by U.S. law

Not entirely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince

No definitive decision, and the case was settled.

Did you read the article? The original court found in favor of Cariou, Price appealed, and won the appeal. Second Circuit Court found it fair use.

Because you cannot break the law if you're rich enough to afford perpetual appeals and good lawyers?

I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, but I'm assuming it's not mine since you're not replying to anything that I actually said.

> No definitive decision, and the case was settled.

Both statements are factually wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the Second Circuit's decision, I'm saying that there was a definitive decision, the case was not settled.

And I'm not sure a single appeal constitutes "perpetual."

Wait, did you?

"The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of 5 of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard."

"On March 18, 2014, Cariou and Prince announced that they had settled the case."

Seems like they mostly found for him, but not 100%. And before the lower court could have the final say, I'm guessing Prince settled out of court. The last thing he needs is any judgment against him. Seems like that could open him up to a flood of lawsuits.

So it's kind of ambiguous. And, yeah, probably only ambiguous because he has the cash to put up a fight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com