Law As Art Criticism: Judging, Copyright, and Appropriation

Hyperallergic’s Cat Weaver takes a look at the Cariou v. Prince copyright/fair use decision as well as the state of appropriation art post-Cariou. [Disclosure: I am quoted in Weaver’s article.] In her article, Law vs. Art Criticism: Judging Appropriation Art, Weaver comments,

…Cariou v Prince, with it’s harsh consequences to Richard Prince and his Canal Zone works has made us very aware that a whole body of work can be wiped out by a court’s decision that a claim to fair use is invalid, begging the question, can a judge make these decisions about art?

One thing to keep in mind: Judges don’t make “decisions about art” out of thin air. They make these decisions on the information presented to them by both parties (plaintiff and defendant). If one party neglects to introduce certain evidence, or worse, doesn’t think a particular type of evidence important enough, then that is not the judge’s problem.

Overall, Weaver makes some interesting observations and delivers a concise overview of the Cariou v. Prince case, and surprisingly, without sounding the all-too-familiar warning of the death of creativity. As I’ve noted before, what strikes me most about Judge Batts’ decision is its two-pronged function as both a legal decision as well as a refreshing and well-articulated form of art criticism.

Tags: art, borrowing, intellectual property, media coverage, stealing