Intellectual Property

It was not until I read Ayn Rand, that I began to notice that some people voice a concept that artists do not own their own creations and that such art "belongs to the people".

In ancient times, when an emperor or king took an artist or creator into his 'court', paid all his/her expenses, I could understand the notion that what they created belonged to their patron benefactor (even though the fact of their creation did not change).

In modern times, however, until an artist or creator sells the product of their creativity (or commissions it), the notion that it might not 'belong' to the artist is a badly disguised rationale for theft.

In 1984, when  Neil Young was sued by Geffen Records for not sounding enough like himself, a dangerous precedent was set.  What the heck?  Not only was Geffen attempting to define a creative identity using its own corporate criteria, but it was also attempting to regulate the artist's future creativity by saying that if a work did not fit its definitions, it should not exist.   Geffen's position was likely that Young's contract tacitly gave them that right, but I disagree.

Another court case,  involving the artwork of Richard Prince, a known appropriation artist, who took some Patrick Cariou's photographs and then used them in various paintings is another example.  Whereas 'appropriations' art has been found legal in the past, a judge ruled that these paintings were not covered under 'fair use' guidelines of copyright law.   That case is under appeal.  In looking at the originals and then at Prince's versions, there is no mistaking their origin and, frankly, no mistaking that they could not exist independently from the original work.  The court originally declared that the 'art' was to be destroyed, but the case is under appeal.

To me, this was a clear case of plagiarism.  Some lesser details were changed, but not so much that the result was a 'stand-alone' piece.  I could also see that, if I had been Cariou, I would have been insulted beyond belief that my work had been so utterly mangled.  It is one thing to take a painting of the Mona Lisa and distort it or 'edit' it or reimagine it so that it is new - because that painting, and da Vinci himself, have been in the public domain for a very long time.  Cariou's work has not.  Prince was clearly profting off the labor, the creation, the intellectual property, the artistry of another person to play his 'changes' of an original piece against the original. I personally consider that THEFT, not art.

For myself, the dividing line between stealing the work of another and paraphrasing or creating something new based on it is how much similarity the 'new' product has with the old one.  In Prince's case, his additions to Cariou's work were not substantive (in my opinion) and could never stand alone on their own merits but instead REQUIRED Cariou to 'participate' in his work without his consent.   While its true that Prince never tried to 'hide' that his work was derivative,  I do not believe that is a defense.  It is also true that had he purchased Cariou's photographs, then defaced them with his 'art', such might have been considered 'ok' were they in his private collection - but to market and display them as original works of art just does not cut it.