Back

Yes Rasta: Richard Prince loses copyright suit

logo

Patrick Cariou spent many years living in Rastafarian communities, immersing himself in Rasta culture and snapping hundreds of photographs. He published his work in a book titled, "Yes, Rasta" in 2000.

Richard Prince probably spent a fraction of that time altering Cariou's photographs by painting over them with guitars and shapes. In 2008 he exhibited these new versions as part of his "Canal Zone" series at the Gagosian Gallery. The exhibit was a smash success. The Guardian reports that eight works sold for a total of more than $10 million, and "seven others have been exchanged for other works of art for between $6m and $8m."

Cariou was not impressed. The French photographer immediately took legal action against Prince and Gagosian Gallery for copyright infringement and conspiracy under the 1976 Copyright Act. Manhattan Federal Court Judge Deborah Batts handed down a judgment on March 19, 2011.

Batts granted summary judgment in favor of Cariou on the issue of copyright infringement. Prince admitted to using 41 of Cariou's images for "Canal Zone", but argued fair use as a defense. The Art Newspaper gives a good analysis of the four fair use elements and concludes, like Batts, that there is no defense. In addition to using substantial portions of original works, Prince made little transformative use of the work and showed bad faith by making no effort to contact Cariou. Batts also found that there was a potential market for derivative-use licenses for these works.

Dear Visitor,

We share your curiosity for art law. Thank you for reading our complimentary articles for the month. To read more free articles, please register for a free account. For even more access and perks, consider becoming a premium member!

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Already a premium member? Sign in

Or, become a premium member for unlimited access

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.