The lawsuit filed by Cariou against Prince, Gagosian gallery and Rizzoli books in 2008 was caused by a copyright infringement when some of Carious’s photographs from his ‘Yes Rasta’ publication appeared in Richard Prince’s ‘Canal Zone’ series without Cariou’s consent. The first ruling made by a US district judge was granted in favor of Cariou, with the defendant ordered to deliver all the copies of the infringed photographs for destruction and also have a written notice delivered to current and future owners of the paintings that they infringed Cariou’s works, which were a collection of creative photography he had taken having spent some years with the Jamaican Rastafarians. Prince altered some of Cariou’s original works.
Prince was using a ‘fair use’ defense, but according to the judge, his work was not transformative enough from that of Cariou’s original pieces. Moreover, he did not comment on the original work as well as the sales figure from the Gagosian gallery sale presented a commercial picture going against the fair use set of guidelines. Some of the factors in fair use of guidelines include the extent of use of the copyrighted work. (Mazzone 41).
After the case had been taken for the second ruling, it was ruled in favor of Prince and Gagosian gallery, as the judge pointed out that the transformation which had made the works by two artists different was evident. Prince’s “fair use” defense stood the test, bringing out the importance of the “fair use” guidelines in light of the strict copyright laws (Aufderheide and Jaszi 15)
With the entire art world’s focus on this case, they seemed content with the second court ruling, and though it looked like a win situation for Prince, some of his works were left to district court for further analysis, with speculation that these five works had aesthetic similarities to the original photographs. The district court ruling usually brings out not so wide view on the “fair use” doctrines, proving that the infringing work must have some semblance on the copyrighted work. Mazzone has asserted that copyright law and intellectual property in the United States needed to be reviewed and reformed in accordance to the claims that there was overreaching by publishers, and owners of these properties calling for stronger rights than those determined and allowed by the law (32- 33)
Going beyond the extent allowed by the law for the publishers as well as overreaching kills creativity brings large social and economic costs. The solution may not lie in changing copyright or intellectual property rights, but rather having mechanisms that will confine people to their legitimate rights.
In Cariou v. Prince case, the defendant argued that Cariou’s work was in no way creative as it was rather an album of photography that did not qualify to be placed under the copyright law. The judge overruled it claiming that creative photography fell under the copyright law bringing to light the fact that, in the past years, it was possible to obtain property rights very easily. Fair use, on the other hand, is still important in light of copyright law, and even on reviewing some of the strictest copyright laws, its importance will not be undermined because people will still need protection outside the copyrighting zones. (Aufderheide and Jaszi 15)
Works Cited
Aufderheide, Patricia and Peter Jaszi. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright Law. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2011. Print.
Mazzone, Jason. Copyfraud and other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law. California: Stanford University, 2011. Print.