A Photograph of A Photograph? That's Plagiarism, Right?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/06/look3-video-sam.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/06/loo...-video-sam.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"I'm fascinated by Richard Prince's Cowboy prints, and not just because they have a tendency to shatter auction records. Prince has re-photographed a series of existing images that were used in Marlboro cigarette ads, blown them up, and claimed them as his own. Prince never credited the original photographers (neither did the advertisements) so it's hard to know who they were and how they feel about it. The New York Times recently identified one of them as photographer Jim Krantz. Now we know another one: Sam Abell. Abell has a forthcoming book called The Life of a Photograph. As part of his presentation Saturday here, he mentioned that one of his photographs, shot in 1996 for the Leo Burnett ad agency as part of a Marlboro ad, was re-appropriated by Prince."</em></p><p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="349" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Um74DKYlta8&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;border=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Um74DKYlta8&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;border=1"></embed></object></p><p>I make no pretense about understanding "art". I know what I like, and what moves me, but I make no distinction between whether it's hand-painted, photographed, or rendered on a computer. This story will be of interest to anyone that has ever picked up a camera - it's amazing what this "artist", Richard Prince, has been able to get away with. Watch the video - it's pretty amazing the kind of personality it would take to pull something like this off.</p>

[Hooch Tan]

What really gets me about this is that credit isn't given to the original source. Did Richard Prince do anything special to the photographs he took? Or is it more of a direct "copy" much like what a photocopier does? There's fair use, but there's also outright copying, without giving credit where credit is due. The fact that he does not cite his sources really doesn't sit well with me.

By the same logic, would I then be able to take photographs of his work and sell them as my own?

[Jason Dunn]

Did Richard Prince do anything special to the photographs he took? Or is it more of a direct "copy" much like what a photocopier does? There's fair use, but there's also outright copying, without giving credit where credit is due.

My understanding is that he enlarged them greatly. Is that "artistic"? Doesn't seem so to me. And in terms of fair use, I don't think that applies here - we're not talking about someone doing a mash-up for fun, this guy's work sells for millions of dollars.

By the same logic, would I then be able to take photographs of his work and sell them as my own?

Now THAT would be a fascinating thing to try. :D

[onlydarksets]

I'm all for art, but this is just stupid. There is no picture out there worth $3 million.

[Hooch Tan]

[QUOTE=fyresyght]By the same logic, would I then be able to take photographs of his work and sell them as my own?[/QUOTE/Now THAT would be a fascinating thing to try. :D

Oh, I'm quite sure that they'd be quite liberal with DMCA notices when it's the other way around.

I honestly can't believe that enlargement is considered artistic, except when it comes to spam emails of a questionable nature. That makes no sense. And he's never been sued at all?