Stolen Picture at Extraordinary Mommy

Stolen Picture at Extraordinary Mommy 

Stolen Picture

May 28th, 2009

So, this is the price we pay for indulging in social media, I guess.

I am thrilled to have reconnected with so many friends on Facebook.  One of them sent me this message yesterday:

Alright, so how’s this for random: I’m in the car, taking my wife for a check up, pass by a new grocery store and notice that they have a picture of you, your husband and two kids on the store front window. Life size. I kid you not. Will take a photo of it later today and send….

What you don’t know from this message: this college friend lives in the CZECH REPUBLIC.

Clearly, my family did NOT take a picture for any advertisements - either here or abroad. And, clearly, whoever hijacked the picture assumed no one would recognize us so far away. Hmmmm…wrong.

I’ll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing.  But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites. This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites. It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.

Perplexing.

 

 

 

According to my friend, Justin, the translation reads:  “We will prepare and deliver your requests in two business days.” 

Thanks, Justin for letting me know!

Interesting.  Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose.  But quite creepy.

This picture was taken by a friend of mine, Gina Kelly.  She does give me the rights to the pictures she has taken - and has authorized me to use them on my site, etc.

Your thoughts?

Updated, Saturday, June 6th.  Based on the comments I’m seeing, I feel compelled to clarify a few things. 1) I am the author of this site - Danielle.  Not my husband.  Quite a few comments have been directed to him. 2) I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high).  Clearly, I am not a professional photographer and should have made the resolution smaller and/or watermarked the picture. 3) I used the incorrect term in one of my comments - the photographer did sign a release for me to use the pictures, and certainly, this does not mean I ‘own’ them. 4) While the photographer certainly may sell some of her pictures as stock, she ALWAYS has the subjects sign a model release.  I didn’t sign one for this picture, but would have if she had asked. 5) I posted this story because I think it is INTERESTING - what are the chances a friend who see this ad thousands of miles away? AND because I was SURPRISED it happend. Like many of you commenting, I wasn’t aware pictures could be taken.  If this makes me naive, so be it.  Now I know. And, for the record, I will not stop using pictures of my family on my site - I will however, change the format. 6) I am grateful to the greatest percentage of people who have commented with very interesting thoughts.  However, if you are part of the smaller percentage who are commenting only to say that a member of my family (or all of us) are ugly, I won’t be approving the comment.  I won’t allow it on my site.  I imagine you understand.  Thanks for stopping by!

Filed under Are you kidding me?, I'm just sayin' |

Stolen Picture at Extraordinary Mommy

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

 Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

Jan 13, 2009

By Daryl Lang

“Takes of Brave Ulysses” by Richard Prince, from the Web site of the Gagosian Gallery. Photographer Patrick Cariou claims this collage illegally uses one of his images.

Photo Gallery

It was bound to happen eventually: A photographer has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against artist Richard Prince.
French photographer Patrick Cariou has filed a lawsuit over a series of Prince collage paintings that were displayed recently at the Gagosian Gallery in New York. Cariou claims Prince’s “Canal Zone” series illegally borrows photographs from his book Yes Rasta.
Throughout his career, Prince has used borrowed images in his artwork. He has occasionally drawn criticism from photographers whose images he has used without permission, but no photographer has ever sued him.
Cariou filed a suit in a U.S. federal court in December against Prince, the Gagosian Gallery, gallery owner Lawrence Gagosian and book publisher Rizzoli, which handled a book connected to the gallery show.
The suit accuses all parties of copyright infringement and seeks unspecified damages. It also asks to have the unsold paintings and books impounded or destroyed, and for the plaintiffs to notify owners of sold paintings that it is illegal to display the work.
Cariou and Rizzoli Publications declined to comment for this story. PDN made several efforts to contact Prince and the Gagosian Gallery and will update this story if they respond.
Cariou’s book on Rastafarian culture, Yes Rasta, was published by powerHouse Books in 2000 and includes about 100 black-and-white photographs. The book was registered with the Copyright Office in 2001, according to the lawsuit. The suit says Cariou spent ten years living with Rastafarians in the mountains of Jamaica.
The lawsuit says at least 20 of the 22 collages in the Prince exhibition used Cariou’s photos. Based on a few sample photographs from the Yes Rasta book available online and images of Prince’s work posted on the Gagosian Gallery Web site, PDN spotted two examples of a Cariou photo reproduced in a Prince painting. The Prince works also include images of naked women that aren't from Cariou's book.
The lawsuit cites an Interview magazine article in which Prince discusses creating art based on a book he picked up about Rastas: “It's a very defined type of culture that I didn't really know much about. But I loved the look, and I loved the dreads, so I just started fooling around with this book, drawing it like I did with the de Kooning paintings.”
Press materials from the Gagosian gallery also say Prince used images “scanned from originals,” or cut out and pasted onto canvas with paint.
Cariou says he learned of the infringement after the exhibit opened in New York and sent a cease-and-desist letter to the gallery on December 11, 2008. The gallery kept the show open until its scheduled closing date of December 20.
Should the case go to trial, it could produce another decision on the subject of fair use, an unsettled area of copyright law.
The Cariou case is similar to a 2003 lawsuit by photographer Andrea Blanch against artist Jeff Koons. Koons used a photograph of a woman’s legs as part of a painted collage, and Blanch sued Koons for copyright infringement. A federal court awarded a decision in favor Koons, saying his work is transformative and fair use. An appeals court affirmed the decision in 2006. Koons has also lost three infringement lawsuits related to his art.
Prince’s best known work is his "Cowboy" series: large, photographic prints of cropped Marlboro cigarette ads that can fetch millions of dollars at auction. Two photographers, Sam Abell and Jim Kranz, have accused Prince of using image they shot for Marlboro, but neither they nor the cigarette maker Philip Morris has sued Prince.
Source document
The case is Cariou v. Prince et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. View a PDF of the lawsuit on the PDNPulse blog.

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement