Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Like this guy...
it's not like I'd ever be selling them or doing anything with them so I *shouldn't* care. in reality it would be kind of difficult not to get slightly miffed.
though I'm more annoyed at the stupid cunts who buy this shite
What do the Instagram terms and conditions say about any licences granted by you using their service?
I mean, if he is, good luck pals. If he isn't, I'd be cracking out my thesaurus for the threatening letter.
yeah, I'd probably write to instagram to try and stop him just to fuck him off
Doesn't seem like he'd give a shit either way.
I'd probably get #copyrightlawyermates to send him a letter before action, because US fair use stuff is a bit more flexible than in good ol' Blighty and I reckon I'd win. And he seems like a bellend.
(I'd be fucking baffled tbh)
because I'm not an wealthy American teenager
I've been after journalists for copyright theft in the past, so this wouldn't be any different in my eyes.
My initial reaction is that if you're going to put your pictures onto these kind of hosting sites, you deserve all you get.
to sue the fuck out of him?
motherfuckers wanna pay $100k for their instagram photos
like it's such a widespread free-for-all that nobody can even be arsed to enforce it
One of those difficult situations where you want to say "of course you did, you silly twat, you're using characters from a phenomenally successful film franchise to sell your widgets. Just let them have your house and be grateful you got off lightly.", but I'm told that isn't what " client care " is all about.
But dozens of fairground ride proprietors.
stupendously brazen, and the character's are the most terrifying kind of uncanny valley
its interesting isnt it? Taking random photos from instagram and adding cryptic comments to the bottom of them. It really speaks to me.
in theory i think it's fine
it's misleading to think of it as him selling people's pictures, he's not, he's selling pictures of altered screenshots of Instagram feeds .
he's transformed the context, and the scale, and the image, and the medium. and yeah he's selling it for fuck loads of money, but he can only sell it for fuck loads of money because he is richard prince, it only becomes worth that much through his involvement.
it's pop art innit, that's what pop art does, it makes art out of stuff in popular culture
but while he's certainly added value - selection of image, context, scale etc as you say, he should still be licensing the photo itself, in the same way that an musician needs to clear samples. It's not really 'fair use' when the image is being blown up to that scale and is an important part of the work.
I think the important point is that Richard Price has made it worth that much money. She couldn't have sold that picture herself for $90,000
Not really sure about what they look like close up, as in whether he had to go to some effort to get a grainy image to look good. I'm guessing not, though.
He's also added his own comment at the bottom
i know art is subjective and everything but this does make me laugh.
and it was batshit nonsense so I don't really think it's much of an addition, but I mention it as it's the most original thing he's done to it. :-/
but see my (crossed) post below - that doesn't mean he can just take an image of lesser value and take the full increased value for himself before getting a licence to use it. He needs to have a licence from Instagram or the individual that says they're happy with him including the photo in his work - under whatever terms they're happy with, be that free use, a flat fee or a percentage.
"[the judgement] it takes into account the underlying public purpose of copyright law, which should not be beholden to statements of individual intent but instead consider the value that all of us gain from the creation of new work."
Would quite like to see someone take up these Instagram prints up to see whether this really would be precedent - nowhere near enough of a legal expert to make sense of the technicalities in that article.
Art Rogers (left) vs Jeff Koons (right)
The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Roger’s work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.
but something like 5% of what he would expect to make off the back of it would look fair to me.
Probably depends on what would normally happen.
I mean say he was creating a fake Instagram image and he wanted a model to pose for him. He would pay her a flat fee, not a %age of what the picture meant, and I'd guess it would probably be less than $4,500 too.
it could be licenced for nothing.
It's the fact that you don't have the right to take someone else's work (unless they've made it public domain) to use like this without licencing it - pending what Arthur says above - I'm not enough of a legal expert to tell whether that work would be similar enough to be legitimately cited as precedent.
As long as you transform the work in a way that is aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.
as (so far as I can tell) in that case he was transforming the actual images by warping/overlaying them, whereas this time he's presenting them in a (slightly) altered context - the original is already presented in the form of an Instagram page. Question is, how different does the aesthetic have to be - one that I'm sure certain lawyers would love to fight over.
And I think putting a comment on the photo is really pushing the transformative work/fair use argument past its breaking point.
A neocon's wet dream
I'm pretty needy so I'd be fine with it.
Plus I could put that 'I was an art once' on my CV.
$100k = £65k ...
this video of the worlds largest puppet is amazing. At one point a giant penis squirts liquid all over a bunch of children if you werent already sold...
and dancing poop
That's what Instagram is for isn't it? For people to like your photos? I don't see the issue.
this kind of 'art', or soccer player salaries?
so both deserve exactly what they are given
I mean the name of the instagram account is right there! Just go to their feed, find the pic you like and do your own screenshot. Spend a couple of quid getting it printed out and you've saved yourself 100k.
If it makes you feel better, you could add a pointless shit comment before you take the screenshot.
These things are purchased for their aesthetic or intrinsic artistic 'worth', they're purchased for no other reason than to make money. Not so thick if you can make a six figure profit off it a couple of years.
Just like any investment you'd have to do your research first I guess.
But you could compare it to something like Damien Hirst's dot paintings. Very easy to do your own version, and you wouldn't spend millions on an original because you like the look of it. But if you bought one on the 'cheap' years ago you'd be laughing all the way to the bank now.
Damien Hirst is over: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-21/for-collectors-with-hirst-comes-pain
you want to buy and sell at the right times. The point is, that is a completely separate concern to how 'good' the actual art is in itself. The financial value of an artwork rising and falling will often happen outside of its control (particularly so with modern or conceptual art).
because sometimes an artwork can have an inherent financial value. Either through a unique skill involved in making it (ie it's not easily replicable by someone less talented), or the cost of the materials to make it. Using Hirst as an example again, something like the diamond skull there is a high value in the diamonds themselves irrespective of how Hirst ordered them to create 'art'.
So sometimes the financial value of an artwork can be inherent in itself, just not always.
But I wouldn't take the Editor of The Jackdaw's word for it given their agenda.
Point is if it and when it does get sold it's value will be at least partly inflated by Hirst's own mythologising.
Other than a paper transaction with the artist himself and his gallery acting as 'buyers'. And given his ever decreasing reputation, it is doubtful that it will be sold in his lifetime. The situation may change once Hirst is dead, obviously.
And although the materials were worth £12 mln at the time it was made no one knows what the real value of the skull is.
It was Cementimental who threw his money away on getting those ones done.
how the fuck has he actually done this
instagram photos are about 600 x 600 pixels - so for these to not look 100% shit, he's going to have to have completely remade those images at a higher resolution and size. so you could say, quite legitimatley, that they are not the original images at all