{"id":212,"date":"2017-04-22T11:47:15","date_gmt":"2017-04-22T15:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=212"},"modified":"2017-04-22T11:47:15","modified_gmt":"2017-04-22T15:47:15","slug":"transformative-use-or-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=212","title":{"rendered":"Transformative Use or Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>Cariou v. Prince<\/em>, 714 F3d 694 [106 USPQ2d 1497] (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit said that\u00a0a use of a copyrighted work need not comment on the original artist or work, or on popular culture, in order to constitute \u201ctransformative\u201d use that qualifies for fair-use defense. \u00a0All that is needed to qualify as a fair use, is that the new work alters the original with \u201cnew expression, meaning, or message. \u00a0Thus the Second Circuit reversed the district court judgment that Cariou&#8217;s photograph (left) was infringed by Prince&#8217;s &#8220;transformative&#8221; image (right).<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-213 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"980\" height=\"591\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince.jpg 980w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince-300x181.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince-768x463.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Cariou_v_Prince-497x300.jpg 497w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 980px) 100vw, 980px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Apparently intent on testing the lower limits of &#8220;transformation,&#8221; Richard Prince has continued with his appropriation style of artistry, and has been sued by two other photographers:<\/p>\n<p>In Graham v. Prince et al, [1:15-cv-10160-SHS ] filed in the Southern District of New York on December 30, 2015, Graham complained about the reproduction of his photograph with a instragram-style border:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-214 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince-1024x684.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"584\" height=\"390\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince-1024x684.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince-768x513.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince-449x300.jpg 449w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Graham_v_Prince.jpg 1037w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0Morris\u00a0v. Prince et al., [2:16-cv-03924-RGK-PJW ] filed in the Central District of California on June 3, 2016, photograph Dennis Morris complained about the appropriation of a portrait he published in a book by Richard Prince:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-217\" src=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"790\" height=\"597\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince.jpg 790w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince-300x227.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince-768x580.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Morris_v_Prince-397x300.jpg 397w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 790px) 100vw, 790px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>In Salazar v. Prince et al., [2:16-cv-04282-MWF-FFM] filed in the Central District of California on June 15, 2016, model\/makeup artist Ashley Salazar complained about the appropriation of a selfie she posted on instagram by Richard Prince:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-216 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince-1024x548.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"584\" height=\"313\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince-1024x548.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince-300x160.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince-768x411.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince-500x267.jpg 500w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Salazar_v_Prince.jpg 1092w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0McNatt v. Prince et al, [1:16-cv-08896-SHS] filed in the Southern District of New York on November 16, 2016, McNatt complained about the reproduction of his photograph with a instragram-style border:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-215 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince-1024x632.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"584\" height=\"360\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince-1024x632.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince-300x185.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince-768x474.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince-486x300.jpg 486w, https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/McNatt_v_Prince.jpg 1089w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>It hard to imagine that using almost an entire image and &#8220;framing&#8221; it with a few comments and graphics is &#8220;transformative,&#8221; \u00a0and we will have to wait to see what the courts say. \u00a0The Morris and Salazar cases have been dismissed by stipulation, the Graham and McNatt are still pending.<\/p>\n<p>One wonders what upsets these plaintiff&#8217;s more, the fact that virtually their entire work is appropriated by someone, or the fact that that someone sells these &#8220;transformations&#8221; for as much as <a href=\"http:\/\/artlawjournal.com\/richard-prince-sued-copyright-infringement\/\">$100,000<\/a>!<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Cariou v. Prince, 714 F3d 694 [106 USPQ2d 1497] (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit said that\u00a0a use of a copyrighted work need not comment on the original artist or work, or on popular culture, in order to constitute &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=212\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":218,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212\/revisions\/218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}