A new year, a new Richard Prince appropriation and fair use dispute. Readers will recall both the controversial 2013 Second Circuit decision on Prince’s dispute with Patrick Cariou over the latter’s Yes, Rasta photographs that Prince altered, defaced, and otherwise rearranged for his Canal Zone series. Last year Prince raised the profile of this provocative exploration of the bounds of copyright with the high profile “Instagram” show in which he enlarged Instagram posts and sold them for north of $90,000 each. Prince has now been sued for copyright infringement by photographer Donald Graham, whose image was used in one of those works. Will this be more of the same, or will Prince suffer a reversal of fortune? Even adopting a liberal interpretation of the 2013 opinion, it looks from here like he may have a problem, but the final word will almost certainly not come for quite some time.
The intermediate appeals court in New York affirmed last week the dismissal of Ronald Perelman’s lawsuit against Larry Gagosian (the initial dismissal was earlier this year). Although we did not analyze the underlying dismissal when it happened (Donn Zaretsky wrote a terrific recap at the time, here). The result, while not terrible surprising at this point, does underscore some important points to remember about the parties’ rights and duties in an art transaction.
Topics: Legislation, Donn Zaretsky, Gagosian Gallery Inc., Appellate Divisision, MacAndrews & Forbes Group LLC, Jeff Koons, opinion of value, Galleries, Ronald Perelman, express warranty, Larry Gagosian, U.C.C. § 2-313