Something to think about before posting to Social Media

This should make you think

Richard Prince Selling Other People's Instagram Shots Without Permission for $100K

The gallery should be charged with fencing stolen property after the fact.
If that happened, then this thief would be out of business because no gallery would display his stolen images.

Copyright protection only applies if the injured party fights back. If you don't fight, you have NO protection.
Simple as that.

For cryin' out loud... The original pic with the face altered and a guitar added, I could see perhaps a "re-creation" of something artistic. Just the same pic with a comment posted below it... *I* would have gone after him, but then again, he probably wouldn't be selling my selfies.

Someone should visit the gallery with some can of paint, doodle all over it and then simply state: "Fair use!".

I agree, but how would you know if he stole one of your selfies or not.

I am more amazed at the type of a person that would do this. We used to have playground rules to fix this type of behavior. I think the more people that know about this the better, but no telling how much money he made.

Its Just Me said:

The gallery should be charged with fencing stolen property after the fact.

Click to expand...

Since what's hanging in the gallery is no doubt being called a derivative work, I don't think it's technically illegal. I agree it's a douche-bag thing to do but being a douche-bag isn't illegal.
....

Krs_2007 said:

I agree, but how would you know if he stole one of your selfies or not.

I am more amazed at the type of a person that would do this. We used to have playground rules to fix this type of behavior. I think the more people that know about this the better, but no telling how much money he made.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but "playground rules" get ya in trouble as an adult...

My curiosity is why the original artist(s) is refusing to press the matter with the douche who stole it - perhaps his having $90K more than she does to start has something to do with it?

The only way in which it is a "derivative work" is because he's included his comment in the image (not that any of them make any sense). He could even say that the "art" has nothing to do with the image but instead it's how his comment relates to that image. It speaks to the assholery of both the artist and "fine art" as a genre. Those wankers deserve each other, but the OP of the images need to file some sort of class action against the bastard. And I'd love to see Instagram finance it since it's their interface in the image.

Pretzel said:

Yeah, but "playground rules" get ya in trouble as an adult...

Click to expand...

I know, right.

Pretzel said:

Yeah, but "playground rules" get ya in trouble as an adult...

Click to expand...

Only if you get caught......

The original image had to be used to start with so I have no idea how he can get away with using other's photos and then altering them to give them his stamp of individuality. I think a crime has been committed and he should be hung out to dry.

He is a prime example of why you should prosecute vermin who impose on your copyright. I think he is just pond scum.

sonicbuffalo said:

The original image had to be used to start with so I have no idea how he can get away with using other's photos and then altering them to give them his stamp of individuality. I think a crime has been committed and he should be hung out to dry.

He is a prime example of why you should prosecute vermin who impose on your copyright. I think he is just pond scum.

Click to expand...

I think he's scum too but the way it works, legally speaking, is pretty much just as you've described...

This douche-bag finds someone's totally cool photo and alters in a particular way, in a way that is characteristic or unique. This modification, in the eye's of the law, creates a totally new piece of artwork; and therein lies the rub. That is precisely what derivative work is and derivative works, even shameless ones like his, ARE legal. At least for now. Technology moves so fast it's just impossible to keep up.
....

As Chevy Chase would say, "I want to look him straight in the eye and tell him what a cheap, lying, no good, rotten, far flushing, snake licking, dirt eating, inbreed, overstuffed, ignorant, blood sucking, dog kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat assed, bug eyed, stiff legged, spotty lipped, worm headed, sack of monkey shit he is!!! Halleluah!! Holy shit!! Where's the Tylenol??"

sonicbuffalo said:

The original image had to be used to start with so I have no idea how he can get away with using other's photos and then altering them to give them his stamp of individuality. I think a crime has been committed and he should be hung out to dry.

He is a prime example of why you should prosecute vermin who impose on your copyright. I think he is just pond scum.

Click to expand...

The thing is provisions are made for fair use and interpretation in derivative works within copyright laws (not that any of these are copyrighted - putting a watermark on it is not enough in the eyes of the law if the recent articles about Facebook's use of images posted is to be believed, you actually need to register the copyright with the gov't). The posting of the image to a "Photo Sharing" site further complicates matters, both in terms of the rights of the owner and use rights of followers and other users. If, as an IG user, I have agreed to allow the sharing of my image in some manner, what prevents anyone (ie. this asshat) from sharing it in other ways? I see the Instagram example as a far different use of the original image than I do of the one with the gun inserted. Right or wrong, lazy or otherwise, there's a broad variety of interpretations as to what the art represents and what was "stolen". The perpetrator was very careful to let us know it was a "screen shot" of the Instagram feed that was enlarged and not a new piece of work utilizing the original artwork in a reconstruction that resembled it. The difference shouldn't matter, but it likely does in a court of law, and I suspect the guy knew that before producing the work, because smart thieves doe their research before they break in and loot the place, and I wouldn't be surprised if the OP of the photo being talked about knows that.

That's not to say that this sucks, or that the guy is scum of the earth, reaping where he does not sow, with no talent for art but great talent as a huckster. He knows how to manipulate the system, which is an art in and of itself. Don't believe me? Watch the documentary Exit Through The Gift Shop (it's on Netflix or you can just watch it here). The art world is populated by an abundance of shysters and pretentious pricks preying on the pseudo-intellectual snobs and wealthy wannabes anxious to say "Oh, we had a so-and-so before the world knew what that was".

The fact that the internet and social media span the walls and laws of any one country makes the ruling on what is and isn't actually permissible all the more complicated, but countries should at least decide what's legal within their borders. That said, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that the courts will decide in favor of the artists as it would likely doom the flow of free source product for these companies that make billions off of our freely sharing our own work for whatever reasons we might have to freely stick it out there (OK, c'mon now, we know it's our ego).