Fair Use Doctrine Dead? A Fair Use Fridays Moment of Silence for Richard Prince

We gaze in awe at the work of Richard Prince.  This photograph of a Marlboro Man advertisement taken by another photographer broke world auction records for a photograph.  Story here.   You can see that Richard Prince claims a copyright in the photograph that he "appropriated" from Jim Krantz.

My post earlier this week here on Patrick Cariou winning his lawsuit against Richard Prince got the most hits of any post I have ever made on this blog, and in a very short period of time.

The entire contemporary art community will be BLOWN AWAY by Judge Batts' decision denying Prince's use the protection of the fair use doctrine.   This challenges an entire category of art known as appropriation art.

L.H.O.O.Q. by Marcel Duchamp

Others are delighted at Prince's discomfiture.   I am troubled.   Fine art, truly fine art in an art gallery, is a place where a copyrighted work becomes a fetish object, a tribute, a decontextualized thing revealing a new meaning.   The urinal of Marcel Duchamp.   The Brillo Box of Andy Warhol.   Both utilitarian objects made by others and fetishized by the artists.

And look at L.H.O.O.Q. - nothing original in the execution, but the Mona Lisa was in the public domain at the time.   Prince is blatantly stealing.   Plagiarists take the words of others and try to make you believe that they have crafted them.   But Prince's cutouts from advertising, porn and outlaw biker magazines never misled the consumer.  

But somewhere, something bothers me about shutting a highly respected fine artist down completely and burning his works when the first sale doctrine would permit him to buy a copy, modify it and resell it.   When the First Amendment lets even repulsive speech be heard and the contemporary art world says it is art, I have a problem with the government burning it.

To me, an original work of fine art properly labeled as such by a new artist is almost pure speech - or in some way pure idea - even if it includes major appropriations.  Things change when the artwork is widely reproduced.  When the consumers are paying tens of thousands for Prince to take something no one is interested in, put his spin on it, and add value.   Prince's "appropriation" added ten million dollars worth of value to a pile of books.   Everyone knew he didn't create the original.

This is not a question of consumers being defrauded, these are wealthy ultrasophisticates on the cutting edge who are the purchasers - surrounded by the top art advisers and critics -if these people feel that Prince's value added is that great, what is the harm in letting them indulge, as long as Prince legally purchased the original books?   In fact, Prince's prices will probably soar - scarcity and scandal drive art prices up.

From a semiotic perspective, isn't Prince simply holding up a mirror to people who may not want to look at themselves or their art as art in the hands of another?   And if your message is mirror-like, is it less valid?   And if you don't have the verbal skills to articulate what you are doing, is that any less a mirror?

Richard Pettibone's Andy Warhol's Black Bean Soup (1968) (1987)

Damien Hirst Hymn

Vik Muniz, Double Mona Lisa, After Warhol (Peanut Butter & Jelly)

Papeschi's NaziSexyMouse

Or if Prince adds a subtle layer of meaning by decontextualizing the original, so what?  Who is hurt?  When Jacob the Jeweler wants to put extra diamonds on your Rolex, is society really hurt by this?

Brillo shouldn't take the boxes back from Warhol, the Keith Haring subway sketches that were illegal now rightly sell in the galleries, Duchamp probably stole the urinal.    Prince's "thefts" are not so far off those marks.

Here are some of the originals compared with infringements:

Patrick Cariou's reaction?   "Destroying art if you don't like it, that's something you have to think extremely deeply about."  Patrick Cariou to ArtInfo/HuffPost, full interview here.


 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Authentication, Artist Foundations and Catalogue Raisonnes

In Thome v. The Alexander & Louisa Calder Foundation, 890 N.Y.S.2d 16 (First Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division, First Department upheld a decision of Justice Charles E. Ramos dismissing a claim against the Calder Foundation.  

The plaintiff owned a work it believed was created by the late Alexander Calder.  Calder was an American sculptor and artist most famous for inventing the mobile.   The plaintiff sued because the Calder Foundation refused to include the work in the artist's catalogue raisonne.  A catalogue raisonne is a publication that purports to include an artist's entire oeuvre (body of work).

The Calder case came up after another case, Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, 2009 WL 1457177 (S.D.N.Y.) survived dismissal with allegations that the Warhol Foundation attempted to tamper with the market for Warhol works in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, to wit:

- The Board made unsolicited suggestions to Warhol owners that they apply for authentication;
- Foundation policies of authentication inconsistently applied;
- Board reversed prior determinations authenticating works;
- Board refused to authenticate works the Foundation previously tried to purchase;
- unlike other boards, Warhol Board not made up of independent and experienced scholars

(these are allegations only, at the pleading stage).  A visit to the Warhol Foundation website shows that they license Warhol's brand, the Bond No. 9 perfume pictured above is an example.

In Calder, however, the court dismissed the actions for declaratory judgment and product disparagement.  The court found that it did not have the power to declare the purported Calder work authentic nor to order the Calder Foundation to include it in the catalogue raisonne.  The court distinguished the law of France, where a French court has the power to appoint a neutral expert and to make determinations of authenticity.  According to the Calder court, a court may not act as a connoisseur, except to make rulings on authenticity that are related to actual cases or controversies before it.   In essence, the court found that its function is not to tell scholars what is real and what is not.

The court also found that the Calder Foundation had no duty to the plaintiff to authenticate the work and that the individual officers of the charity who were sued enjoyed immunity from suit.   The fact that the Calder Foundation might own Calder works and thus might enhance their value by restricting the market was not enough to survive dismissal.

Foundations vary greatly in practices, market power, and credibility.  There is no disputing that for certain artists, the foundations act in dictatorial and inappropriate ways, leveraging the artist's power far beyond what copyright law contemplates.

So if you own an artwork that you think is a Calder, how would you proceed?  From the Calder Foundation's website, you would fill out the following application:

Examinations



Owners of works attributed to Alexander Calder may apply to the Calder Foundation for the examination of the work. The Calder Foundation does not charge a fee for examinations.


For the Foundation to consider the examination of a work, the owner must have previously submitted an Application for Registration and a 4” x 5” Ektachrome as well as a written request for an examination.


For works which the Foundation has agreed to examine, the owner will be provided with an Examination Agreement. The Examination Agreement must be executed and returned to the Foundation prior to the examination.


The Foundation does not provide certificates of authenticity and does not assist with appraisals or valuations.


To request an examination, please contact the Foundation directly.

Click here to download the Application for Registration in Adobe.pdf format.