• Artist sells screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos for $90,000
    68 replies, posted
[IMG]http://www.highsnobiety.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/12/files/2015/06/11-864x576.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]There’s a legal argument for it, which might protect photographer Richard Prince, who took grabbed a bunch of Instagram photos, printed large copies of them and putting them up for sale at the Frieze Art Fair in New York — as if they were his own.According to Instagram’s own Terms of Use, you own your photos and videos. But buried in Instagram’s privacy policy is an otherwise innocuous line that could protect Prince’s controversial actions. “Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.” That seems obvious enough. But Mary Ann L. Wymore, an intellectual property attorney in St. Louis, Missouri. thinks that might be the loophole that someone like Prince uses to grant himself permission to copy entire Instagram posts. “We’ve found the defense they’d probably try to rely on, which is consent — explicit or implied,” she said. “People need to be very careful about their privacy settings.” But Prince is actually just a thief. That’s how Doe Deere feels. She’s a makeup company CEO whose proudly displays her striking and alluring retro style online. Over the weekend, she publicly berated Prince on Instagram for putting her photo on display at New York’s Frieze Art Fair “without my knowledge.” Prince didn’t respond to direct interview requests — or through the Gagosian Gallery, which displays his work.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://fox8.com/2015/05/28/artist-sells-screenshots-of-other-peoples-instagram-photos-for-90000/[/URL] What do you guys think?
It's pretty smart. Evil, but smart. Made 90 grand from nothing, so the guy's got brains.
Hope he get sued to hell and back. Let's see how trial goes.
One thing is certain, I cannot imagine a more hipster art sale. [editline]5th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=minilandstan;47883154]It's pretty smart. Evil, but smart. Made 90 grand from nothing, so the guy's got brains.[/QUOTE] Am I missing something? Where does the article say he actually successfully sold any of this?
Who the fuck bought these, though?
I think this artwork would be 100% better if it was his photo or mock screenshots because I love Instagram's simplistic photo viewer But if he's making that much money he should at least pay some to the people whose photos he used
Fucking artists
Why would you spend 90,000$ on those prints though? You could just find the posts and make your own for a fraction of the price.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47883253]Why would you spend 90,000$ on those prints though? You could just find the posts and make your own for a fraction of the price.[/QUOTE] Shhh it's art.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47883253]Why would you spend 90,000$ on those prints though? You could just find the posts and make your own for a fraction of the price.[/QUOTE] The fact that these prints have brought on this controversy alone might compel someone to pay this much. Because art. Or something. I guess.
This is hardly "fair use". I can see the "artist" getting a few phone calls regarding copyright infringement.
[IMG]https://news.artnet.com/wp-content/news-upload/2014/08/2014-08-01-4chan-ebay-art.jpg[/IMG]
[quote]“Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.”[/quote] Pretty big difference between shared and sold... I don't think this will ever hold up in a court if he gets sued.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;47883154]It's pretty smart. Evil, but smart. Made 90 grand from nothing, so the guy's got brains.[/QUOTE] I don't think he's sold any yet, the article doesn't state anything, they're just up for sale. Also it seems that besides that "resharing" line posted from Instagram's Terms of Use, there's also "Instagram says it can sell your photos and grant permission on your behalf".
[QUOTE=LarparNar;47883424]Pretty big difference between shared and sold... I don't think this will ever hold up in a court if he gets sued.[/QUOTE] The fact most things like this don't get taken far in court (or if they do they aren't successful) is the price of taking a copyright infringement that high is INSANE. That's the reason most companies like Marvel don't take Fan art creators to court, typically costs in excess of £2,000,000 to get it up the chain. So if you sued them for damages at like £1,000,000 (which is way above what most COULD sue for) you would still be in the shit if you won.
[QUOTE=cucumber;47883401][IMG]https://news.artnet.com/wp-content/news-upload/2014/08/2014-08-01-4chan-ebay-art.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That arguement is similar to how quite a lot of things can come across as food, doesn't mean it's any good. I think people get a bit more hung up on this fact than they need to be. Great art will still be great, people just unfortunately appreciate it differently (and less) these days.
Last I checked being given the right to share isn't the same as being given the right to sell.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;47883642]That arguement is similar to how quite a lot of things can come across as food, doesn't mean it's any good. I think people get a bit more hung up on this fact than they need to be. Great art will still be great, people just unfortunately appreciate it differently (and less) these days.[/QUOTE] But the quality of art is completely subjective
This is old news- one of the companies/people whose art was stolen for this responded by selling the prints of their work (in exactly the same format) for $90 rather than $90,000, to piss off the people who spent so much money for the stolen works. [url]https://www.facebook.com/108067899282/photos/a.409879894282.201101.108067899282/10153369843989283/?type=1&theater[/url] [url]https://suicidegirls.com/shop/instagram-art-1/[/url]
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] I am so hip I tell ya the art of the future is even more of a joke
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47883253]Why would you spend 90,000$ on those prints though? You could just find the posts and make your own for a fraction of the price.[/QUOTE] One thing I found about digital art is that the larger the prints the more valuable it gets. If this guy printed a 2 story high instagram screenshot it would sell for fucking millions.
[QUOTE=adam1172;47884369]One thing I found about digital art is that the larger the prints the more valuable it gets. If this guy printed a 2 story high instagram screenshot it would sell for fucking millions.[/QUOTE] They should print and sell individual pixels instead.
Those look cool on a wall - but obv it's shitty to do. [editline]5th June 2015[/editline] Oh yeah, I forgot. ART THREAD IN SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES, LEAVE NOW BEFORE THERE ARE 50 PAGES TALKING ABOUT POOP AND JACKSON POLLOCK AND WARHAMMER ART
i think if anyones to blame here for bein dumb it's the buyer.
This art is derivative, he can legally do this. The photo and the caption themselves are not really the point, but rather placing them into a different context than which they normally exist. This is an evolutionary step from artists like Duchamp, because the artistic value is derived from the context in which the art is placed. The point is to evoke a reaction. I'm not saying that this isn't stupid or that that it isn't morally questionable, but the creator is within his legal right to do this, and he has a reason for doing it. That's pretty much all there is to it, whether you disagree or not.
Wait a second, couldn't I take the screenshot OF the screenshots and sell those? and then take screenshots of what I just sold and sell THOSE?!
i don't think he's actually going to successfully sell any of these, it's more about a statement he wants to make rather than exposing pictures on a white wall (although if he did sell any of these pictures it would only enforce his argument).
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47884443]i think if anyones to blame here for bein dumb it's the buyer.[/QUOTE] Why? Rich people buying expensive shit is nothing new. They can afford it, why does it make them dumb?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47884940]Why? Rich people buying expensive shit is nothing new. They can afford it, why does it make them dumb?[/QUOTE] Because they are spending a bunch of money on something stupid. No one said it was new. That's the only answer you're going to get. No
[QUOTE=BarnacleDrive;47884019]This is old news- one of the companies/people whose art was stolen for this responded by selling the prints of their work (in exactly the same format) for $90 rather than $90,000, to piss off the people who spent so much money for the stolen works. [url]https://www.facebook.com/108067899282/photos/a.409879894282.201101.108067899282/10153369843989283/?type=1&theater[/url] [url]https://suicidegirls.com/shop/instagram-art-1/[/url][/QUOTE] Unfortunately, Suicide Girls also did an AMA recently where people slammed them with the fact that they basically pay their models and photographers fuck all, and anyone who wasn't the most popular model was basically made out to be 'free content' to anyone who subscribed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.