Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC

Call Us With Your Questions

917-338-3879
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Matthew F. Schwartz
    • John Ponterio
  • Practice Areas
    • Legal Malpractice
    • Copyright Law
    • Referrals For Legal Malpractice
    • Criminal Defense
  • Blog
  • Contact
Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC
917-338-3879
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Matthew F. Schwartz
    • John Ponterio
  • Practice Areas
    • Legal Malpractice
    • Copyright Law
    • Referrals For Legal Malpractice
    • Criminal Defense
  • Blog
  • Contact

Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC holds lawyers responsible for legal malpractice.

Intellectual property litigation may affect digital media

On Behalf of Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC | Aug 7, 2017 | Intellectual Property Litigation

Richard Prince has a reputation for pushing the limits. The photographer and artist has raised the ire of other artists for nearly 40 years by appropriating their work, re-imagining it and presenting it to the New York public as his own original art. It is precisely this modus operandi that has him facing intellectual property litigation in federal court.

Prince’s concept of transforming the art of other people did not impress a U.S. district court judge. The judge ruled against Prince when the photographer asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed against Prince and the gallery displaying Prince’s work. The photograph in question was called “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint,” posted on the Instagram account of photographer Donald Graham.

To transform Graham’s photograph (and those of dozens of other artists), Prince posted a comment under the image on the Instagram page and took a screenshot. He then enlarged the image to 4 feet wide and over 5 feet tall, and exhibited it in a New York gallery. He sold the transformed work for $100,000. Prince has made millions of dollars re-photographing the work of other people, and while some critics hail him as an genius, some of those whose art he transforms do not seem so enthralled.

Graham’s intellectual property litigation against Prince will go forward. Some believe it may set a precedent for future interpretation of the fair-use doctrine, especially as it pertains to social media and digital art. Meanwhile, artists may wonder how to prevent their own work from being misappropriated for someone else’s gain. They may find answers to their questions by consulting an experienced attorney.

Source: craveonline.com, “Richard Prince Back in Court”, Miss Rosen, Aug. 2, 2017

Categories

  • Copyright Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Legal Malpractice

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Continuous representation doctrine and NY legal malpractice lawsuits
  • Is avoiding use of AI legal malpractice?
  • 2 common examples of legal malpractice in real estate matters
  • Does a missed deadline automatically mean legal malpractice?
  • Legal billing hours fraud: What wronged clients need to know

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog's Feed

Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC
NEW YORK
134 W. 29th Street, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10001-5304

New York Office

PHONE
917-338-3879

FAX
212-714-1264

  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
Review Us

Send Us An Email

Attorney Advertising

© 2026 Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw