Fairly Used: Comments on Art and Intellectual Property

In this post, Jeffry Cudlin comments on a recent court ruling which stated that artist Richard Prince’s Canal Zone show drew too closely on themes in photographer Patrick Cariou’s book Yes, Rasta. The ruling, Cudlin shows, brings about many questions with regards to what is or is not fair use in the art world, as well as touching on the high art vs. low art debate. An excerpt:

“Reactions have been all over the spectrum. A lot of painters and photographers I know personally have been gleefully stamping their feet, decrying Prince’s laziness as a producer, and questioning the ways appropriation and recontextualization have become accepted practice in gallery culture.

Me, I’m a fan of fair use, and however ambivalent I might be about Prince’s methods in this show in particular—he apparently requested multiple copies of Yes, Rasta from Cariou’s studio without declaring his intent, and went on to use 35 photos in some 28 paintings total—the ruling threatens to turn contemporary art on its head, and will, if it stands, certainly change the way some galleries decide what to show….

The heart of the matter, though—and this also came up in the Jeff Koons decision back in 1992—seems to be whether or not Prince was specifically commenting on Cariou’s work by appropriating it. [U.S. District judge] Batts didn’t think so…[and] Prince’s dismissal seems to be an assumption that Cariou is not a part of the contemporary art world. His work provides raw fodder for Prince’s own development of an idea, but without Prince, it has no merit—and, presumably, if Cariou were part of the art world, he wouldn’t be making these kinds of photos, anyway.”

You can read the post in its entirety here. The photo used above is one of Cariou’s own from Yes, Rasta and was originally found here.