Cariou v. Prince, et al.
The Art Newspaper, by Andrew Goldstein, has been covering the unfolding legal tête-à-tête between French photographer Patrick Cariou and Richard Prince over the latter’s appropriation of 30 photographs from the former for his Canal Zone (2008) exhibition at Gagosian Gallery.
First filed December 30, 2008, the complaint (.PDF link) alleges copyright infringement by Prince for the use of Cariou’s images from his book, Yes Rasta, in the production of the Canal Zone series. In addition to the artist, the suit aims to hold Larry Gagosian and his gallery liable for their display and sale, and Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. for distribution of the accompanying book.
Continued coverage by The Art Newspaper (and a comparative analysis between UK and US copyright law) reveals that both Prince and Gagosian and Co. (.PDF links) are claiming an affirmative defense of the doctrine of ‘fair use,’ while Rizzoli cross-claims (.PDF link) it is indemnified of the culpability of their co-defendants — a claim both Prince and Gagosian deny in the absence of any written, binding or executed contractual obligations.
Sifting through the legal claims and analyses, the validity of the ‘fair use’ and ‘transformative’ nature of Prince’s work(s) will be determined by taking a look at these same images in contrast to Cariou’s. The Frenchman’s assertions may not hold up against all of the works, but some may receive greater scrutiny. Depending on how many, and whether the demand for their destruction is taken seriously by the defendants, a settlement/licensing agreement may be less costly overall.
