Well...yes...this headline manages to be both true but a little off-point. By posting your photos on Instagram, you have definitely given a third-party (Instagram) the right to make copies and distribute your photos...yet, the photo still belongs to you, Instagram is quick to point out [1].<p>But the reselling of photos as described here is not particular to Instagram. It involves an artist who reappropriates them for artistic purposes (similar to parody)...he could've done this with any photo or off of any service...so this concept isn't even particular to the Internet and the digital age.<p>However, such examples as the OP are always good for discussion about "what is art?"...it's not so much the actual work (measured in sweat and hours) put into it, but the skill in repurposing it, and in the reputation of the artist...you have to build up quite the career of actually interesting work before you can get to the point where a rich tycoon will pay you $250K to splatter mud patterns on one of his walls. It'd be interesting to see a lawsuit come out of this...I'm guessing the artist could make a good case that the original photographers would never be able to raise $90K for their images...people only pay for it because it is work that <i>he</i> noticed/curated/altered.<p>[1] <a href="http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening" rel="nofollow">http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...</a>
Copyright law is strange and inconsistent. Contrast this story with this one ("red bus case"[0]):<p><a href="http://aandalawblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/red-bus-suggests-copyright-law-is-not.html" rel="nofollow">http://aandalawblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/red-bus-suggests-co...</a><p>So at one end of the spectrum literally taking someone's photo and selling them without permission is NOT copyright infringement, and at the other end taking your own photo then altering it a certain way IS copyright infringement. Someone will have to explain that one to me...<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_v_New_English_Teas_Ltd" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_...</a>
It doesn't really bother me that much that someone else could sell your Instagram photos.<p>What bothers me is that someone else would buy them, when they're available for free on the internet.
I find it fascinating that trivial modifications of photos qualify as 'transformative' and thus evade copyright. So it's okay for me to download the new Taylor Swift single, add some extra reverb, and start selling copies of it? Cool.
The buyers aren't spending 90k for a print of an Instagram, they're spending 90k for Richard Prince's signature on the bottom. Richard Prince could appropriate anything at this point, make a very limited edition, sign it, and mint money.<p>You couldn't, I couldn't, but he can.
Add a comment to someone else's Instagram photo: not copyright infringement. Make 90K.<p>Sample one measure of a well known song in a hip hop tune: totally copyright infringement. Get sued for 90k.
The headline is a bit like saying "Painters sells dried paint for 90k" or "Programmer sells series of characters for 90k" Technically it's accurate, but it misses the point entirely.<p>Richard Prince, whether you like him or not, is an artist and his medium is typically found/appropriated objects. We, as a society, have rewarded him in the past because there is something interesting in what he does. Oftentimes artists are misunderstood within their lifetimes and the scope of their interests become more apparent with time. So for now, these are super gimmicky and somewhat frustrating, but as the world changes in unexpected ways they will only take on more meaning .
baffling and understandably shocks ppl....but all that aside, wondering what kind of quality could the prints be really ? Res of instagram photos isn't that high right? even thru the API?
So a couple different things here:<p>On one hand, it's funny that user "doedeere" thinks she had to give permission to the artist in order to use her picture in art. Gives off an air of entitlement if you ask me. On the other, I think it's a fair example of how little the average user is aware (read: doesn't give any attention to at all) of a free service's TOS and what is/isn't allowed, in addition the actual nature of posting stuff on the Internet. Need to educate yourselves, people (obviously not anyone browsing HN, but you know what I mean).<p>The fact that these pieces are selling for that much? Well, I'd say the suckers are the ones buying them. Maybe in 60 or so years they'll be considered something? Maybe not? Art's in the eye of the beholder, as it should be. If people want to wast...I mean spend that much on an enlarged screenshot, let them.