Topics: “New Portraits", Richard Prince, Copyright Act, DoeDeere, 2LiveCrew, Prince v. Cariou, Roy Orbison, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Internet, Yes Rasta, 17 U.S.C. § 107, Instagram, Copyright, Gagosian Gallery, transformativeness, intellectual property, Fair Use, § 107
The lawsuit arising out of the Keith Haring Foundation’s refusal to authenticate a painting a Haring work, and the Foundation’s related efforts to prevent the exhibition of works it did not consider to be authentic, has been dismissed. The case is the latest in a series of civil cases related to the authentication of art—contemporary art in particular. While this case is resolved pending any appeal, the high-stakes nature of contemporary art assures that it will not be the last.
Patrick Cariou has filed his much-anticipated responsive brief in the Richard Prince/Gagosian Gallery copyright infringement appeal. Cariou’s brief makes its stand on the question of transformative use. The degree to which a derivative work is transformative of a protected work is, of course, a central element of a fair use analysis about which Prince will have to persuade the Second Circuit to overturn the judgment below. In so doing, however, one starts to wonder if this case will be of less precedential value—less transformative, if you will—than it has seemed since the judgment last year.
After several months of inactivity, the first brief is available in the Richard Prince appeal of the judgment against him and the Gagosian Gallery earlier this year for infringing on the works of Patrick Cariou. Prince’s arguments of “fair use” of Cariou’s photographs failed to persuade the District Court and the infringing works were ordered impounded, a harsh and unusual remedy.
Topics: Richard Prince, Rasta, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Dada, Association of Art Museum Directors, Yes, Cubist, Copyright, Gagosian Gallery, intellectual property, Fair Use, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts
The Richard Prince copyright case is in the news again, though probably more than it deserves. Patrick Cariou, whose photographs Prince was found this spring to have infringed, moved to dismiss Prince’s appeal arguing that the injunction concerning the impoundment and destruction of the existing works (Prince was ordered to deliver them for destruction) was mooted by a stipulation between the parties. Thus, Cariou argued, there was nothing at the moment to appeal (i.e. Prince appealed to soon).