RICHARD PRINCE AND GAGOSIAN FIGHT BACK OVER LAWSUIT
Lawyers for Richard Prince and his dealer Larry Gagosian have responded to a copyright-infringement lawsuit filed by French photographer Patrick Cariou. According to the Art Newspaper, Prince and Gagosian’s lawyers argue that Prince’s appropriation of Cariou’s photographs of Rastafarians for a recent series of paintings is protected under the US doctrine of “fair use.” The suit, filed in New York after Gagosian displayed the paintings in a show titled “Canal Zone” in 2008, alleges that the defendants made unauthorized use of images from Cariou’s 2000 book Yes Rasta, an ethnographic survey of Rastafarian culture that the photographer assembled during a decade of research in the mountains of Jamaica. The Rizzoli publishing house, which coproduced the “Canal Zone” catalogue and was also named in the suit, filed a response denying that it distributes the book and claiming indemnity.
Cariou’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as the “impounding, destruction, or other disposition” of all twenty-two paintings in the series—which combines the Rastafarian images with pornography and expressionistic brushwork—as well as all unsold catalogues and preparatory materials. In their answer to Cariou’s suit, Gagosian’s lawyers assert that Prince’s incorporation of the photographs is allowable under fair use, which permits the limited reproduction of copyright material for creative purposes. “Cariou’s copyrighted works,” the response states, “are factually based in that they are real-life photographs of Rastafarians as they appear in their native environments, whereas the works of art by Prince utilize small portions of the photographs, together with other images and media, to create a new and unique work which comments upon certain aspects of culture.”
In his response, Prince argued that the photographs in Yes Rasta are not “‘strikingly original’ or ‘distinctive’ in nature”, and that his “transformative” uses of the photographs were “done in good faith and reflect established artistic practices.” Prince’s answer furthermore stated that his appropriation, which he claims is sanctioned under fair use, “poses no harm to the value of such photographs and any market value relating to the photographs has…been enhanced rather than decreased.”
