Sometimes I think copyright infringement suits are well warranted.
Based on this NYT account at least, Richard Prince's "appropriation art" seems to cross that line. But then again, the wronged photographer quoted in the article, Jim Krantz, doesn't seem to own the copyrights that Prince ignores, and it is not clear that copyright law would probive him with the "attribution and recognition" he desires, since Section 106A of the Copyright Act (a.k.a. VARA) wouldn't seem to apply. Unlike Prince's actions (again, basing this analysis strictly on the information in the linked article), here's a fair use reproduction of one of Krantz's photos:
Leave a comment