on the face of it, this seems so wrong... and yet... he seems to have some legitimacy? he won a court battle? have to say this kind of gives me the feeling of "yuck" - but maybe there's a piece of the puzzle that i'm missing?
I don't get it...seems to be theft of her work no matter how you cut it. Especially then selling for any amount (especially obscene amounts?) of money. But what to me seems strange is why a photographer would want to build his or her reputation based on photographing other people's work -- and powerless other people, at that. Yuck, strange, bizarre, inappropriate -- those are the words that came to my mind as I read the article, regardless of the court case.
this would mean anyone could take any photo from the internet and sell it. is he just taking advantage because he knows she can't fight this financially? could he just take any professional or amateur photographer's work and do the same? I can't imagine someone taking his work and reselling it. he shouldn't have to split the money he should have to give her all the money and quit stealing other people's pictures. if I had bought this from him I would demand my money back on the grounds that it was misrepresented as his work. sad there even has to be a court case at all.
@taffy - maybe his whole reputation is fighting the establishment via the courts. Maybe his art is in battling copy right infringement, as it would appear he has done it before.
This guy sucks.
Tough issue. He's very wrong but in the lucky position that other dumb people pay a lot of money for it. He, and others, probably think he's an artist. He won't stop.
I think the store about taking advantage of the woman body is crap though. I believe the boyfriend is the main subject here. What does he think?
Wow, I think that is outrageous! Enlarging it is hardly making it his own, it is clearly her photo. How can he even win this in a court case? I think, with the uptake in social media, that these laws need to change.
There is an update to this story in that the person, who had her images stolen,had these same images produced and was selling them for $90 each and I believe she donated all proceeds th charity. At least she was getting payback for the exorborant prices that the images were originally selling for. Good for her! Also, how he made these his photos is that he removed comments from her photos and replaced them with his own comments. This how the courts decided with him. Not that I agree, this was just my understanding of this case. Also,this guy has been stealing and selling images since the seventies. He's well versed in the "con" game and copywriter laws. He has been sued several times.
That's just WRONG. PERIOD. Any "artist" who appropriates others' works and presents them as his/her own is STEALING. Also, in my book he's NOT an artist, just a cheap rip-off. Unfortunately for the world, some people support that kind of crap. :(
It's a tough issue because he did alter the work. He didn't take just the image, pass the image off as his own and sell it. He added comical comments to it and sold it as "new" art. From a legal sense I understand his point of view although it still gets dangerously close to unauthorized editorial use of the image. Regardless of what he did being technically "legal", from a photographers perspective though, I consider him to be a roach. But then flipping right back over to the other side, it seems that's what the world has come to anyway...so very few original ideas and work. Almost everything is something that has been already done, just labeled "better" and repackaged differently with a higher price tag - and people make millions doing it. Even a look through Getty Images anymore and I'm overwhelmed by the lack of originality - yet these images are eaten up by agencies and the public. Isn't the public tired yet of photos of coffee with the floating cream shaped into a leaf or tree? I digress, sorry... In any case, unfortunately his "art" is legal, although it's deplorable and shameful. Nevertheless he is laughing all the way to the bank. Hopefully karma is paying attention....
Add a copyright notice, and although that can be removed, if you can demonstrate when and where it was posted with the notice, the man stands little chance in court, the notice providing evidence that the material is *not* in the public domain. I notice the issue is not privacy or such, but just that a piece of the dollar action is wanted, and not by the original photographer but by the subject. The value-added was not in the original content sitting in Instagram album, but the name and the significant distribution and market power Mr. Price commands. As derivative and blah as his work may be.
Instagram is to be faulted as well for their wishy-washy attitude to such things. They could have a strong policy explicitly stated, and go to bat for the little guy when taken advantage of. They have no intent of entering that contentious space, and really don't care about their users, only that they keep coming to keep the add revenue flowing. The cynical world of social media providers should not surprise anyone.
@susanalena good for her...that should bring to light how wrong this is. they actually discussed this on the "chew" today (I know hard hitting talk/news show) half of the hosts thought it was ok. I wonder what they might think if someone reprinted a cookbook of theirs...I think it's kind of the same thing. they said if you put a photo on the internet it becomes public domain but if you put a cookbook out into the public isn't it the same thing?
Question 1) Is Mr. Prince (who's no prince) talented enough to compose his own shots? My answer: probably not.
Question 2) Does Mr. Prince know what makes a photo good or not? My answer: If he's stealing candids off Instagram, probably not!
Question 3) Do the people who buy Mr. Prince's "photos" have good taste? I'll let you answer that one!
My thought is this- if people are bothered enough by this "photographer's" methods- they should picket his gallery shows with their originals and pass out flyers showing what he did to everyone who's going in to see his so-called art.
tx all... good to know i haven't completely lost my mind... but, honestly... it bothers me to no end that someone like this is able to survive and thrive...
Well I think it's a great photo and I'm glad her sister is getting publicity especially as she seems to have had her instagram account removed for a ridiculous reason. I would say he owns the comment and she owns the photo and if he'd been a normal decent person he could have collaborated. I hope when she sold the prints for $90 she used his comments.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
This guy sucks.
I think the store about taking advantage of the woman body is crap though. I believe the boyfriend is the main subject here. What does he think?
This guy is a complete prick!
Instagram is to be faulted as well for their wishy-washy attitude to such things. They could have a strong policy explicitly stated, and go to bat for the little guy when taken advantage of. They have no intent of entering that contentious space, and really don't care about their users, only that they keep coming to keep the add revenue flowing. The cynical world of social media providers should not surprise anyone.
Question 2) Does Mr. Prince know what makes a photo good or not? My answer: If he's stealing candids off Instagram, probably not!
Question 3) Do the people who buy Mr. Prince's "photos" have good taste? I'll let you answer that one!
My thought is this- if people are bothered enough by this "photographer's" methods- they should picket his gallery shows with their originals and pass out flyers showing what he did to everyone who's going in to see his so-called art.
Ok time for me to get off the soap box.
DbJ - love your comment about Karma!
@taffy @olivetreeann @jackies365 @frankhymus @dbj @ingrid2101 @juliedduncan @susanalena @888rachel @888rachel @sjodell @stillcrappysailor @mastermek