As we’ve reported in our coverage of photographer Patrick Cariou’s infringement claim against Richard Prince, Prince and his defenders argue that appropriation art does little harm to individuals from whom appropriation artists steal their raw materials. Their implied question: Where would civilization be without the great works of appropriation artists like Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg?

Credit The Art Newspaper, a British publication, with taking on that argument. Yesterday they reported that Warhol, Rauschenberg and other big name appropriation artists quit stealing the work of others–and started getting licenses instead–after they got sued once or twice (or five times) for infringement.

“There is growing evidence—albeit rarely reported—that, although these artists may have started out as willing or unwitting outlaws, they decided that possibly infringing other artists’ copyright was legally unwise and potentially expensive, and they stopped,” writes Laura Gilbert for The Art Newspaper.

She reports that Andy Warhol faced lawsuits in the 1960s for unauthorized use of photographs by Patricia Caulfield, Fred Ward, and Charles Moore. He settled the claims out of court, and afterwards started asking for permission before incorporating works by others into his own creations. “He learned a lesson from the lawsuits,” Warhol’s gallerist, Ronald Feldman, told Gilbert.

Robert Rauschenberg was sued in the 1970s for unauthorized use of one of Morton Beebe’s photographs. After settling the suit in 1980, Rauschenberg reportedly quit appropriating the work of other artists. Jeff Koons, another appropriation artist who was famously sued (and lost) over the “String of Puppies” sculpture he copied without permission from a photograph, no longer uses the work of others without permission, his lawyer told The Art Newspaper.

Gilbert cites other examples, too. The message is that former art pirates with big names weren’t above the law, after all, and when they were sued into compliance, it wasn’t the end of appropriation art, much less civilization.

Richard Prince has already been held liable for infringement by a federal trial court judge. His appeal is pending. A victory for Prince, it seems, would put him in a special class of pirates with immunity, pretty much by himself.

Related:
Appropriation Artist Richard Prince Liable for Infringement, Court Rules
In Cariou v. Prince, an Appeal to Clarify a Crucial Fair Use Boundary


COMMENTS

MORE POSTS

Top Photo News Stories of 2016

Posted by on Tuesday December 27, 2016 | Copyright/Legal, Media, Photos In The News

Copyright dispute, the continuing controversy over for-profit art schools, Richard Prince (again), First Amendment protections and the President-elect: We look back on the stories that attracted the most attention in 2016. 1- The President-Elect Objects to a News Photo Showing his Double Chin Just 59 days before the President-elect will take an oath to “preserve, protect... More

Committee to Protect Journalists Issues Advisory for Journalists Crossing U.S. Border

Posted by on Monday December 12, 2016 | Copyright/Legal, Photojournalism

Journalists are being stopped at the U.S. border with alarming frequency, prompting the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) to issue an advisory outlining steps to prepare journalists for U.S. Customs. According to CPJ, more than seven journalists, including photographers Ed Ou and Kim Badawi, have been detained and questioned, and have had their belongings, including... More

Photographer Sues VICE for Unauthorized Use of Expectant Couple

Posted by on Wednesday November 30, 2016 | Copyright/Legal

Photographer Jana Romanova has sued VICE Media for willful copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for publishing a photo from her “Waiting” series without permission. Romanova’s suit, filed in the Eastern District of New York on November 23, alleges that VICE violated her copyright when it published one of her... More