Richard Prince at Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills (foto Jeff Kravitz | Film Magic Inc)

Gagosian wins an Initial Victory in A Long Running Lawsuit Brought by A Photographer who Claims Richard Prince Appropriated his Work

Law

Prince’s Series, Which Depicts Appropriated Instagram Photos, has been at the Center of an Ongoing Copyright Debate.

Gagosian Gallery is Not Liable for Profits from Any Sales of Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” Series, Works by the Appropriation Artist At the Center of an Ongoing Copyright Case, According to A Decision in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York Filed on September 11.

The “Paintings,” which were Printed Screen Grabs of Instagram Posts from Various Influencers and Celebrities, have Prompted Both Widespread Critical Debate and Legal Action since the Artist Presented them at Gagosian in New York in 2014, where they Sold for $ 100,000 Watch. In the Latest Development in One Protracted Legal Saga Related to the Series, the Court Sided with Gagosian’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissed Photographer Donald Graham’s Claims Seeking Compensation for “Indirect and Unrealized Profits Attributable to the Alleged Infringement of Graham’s Photograph.”

Graham, whose Instagram Photo in the Series Depicts A Rastafarian Man Smoking A Joint, Initiated A Lawsuit against Gagosian in 2015 Alleging Copyright Infringement, after Originally Filing A Cease and Desist that went Unheeded. The Gallery Bought the Work that Appropriated Graham’s Image, which is Called Untitled  Portrait of Rastajay92, Prior to the Show. Graham’s Lawsuit came Down to What this Week’s Opinion Calls “Indirect and Unrealized Profits,” that Gagosian makes in A Hypothetical Sale of the Work.

Graham Asserted that he is Entitled to A Cut of those Unrealized Profits, Seeing as this Specific Work was Used as Promotional Imagery for Selling the Other 76 Works from the Series. Graham’s Suit Also Claimed that there was “A Causal Connection between the Infringement and Unrealized Profits” and “A Method for Determining the Amount of Unrealized Profits.” But the Court Deemed Such Theoretical Gains “Not Sufficiently Connected to the Alleged Infringement and Overly Speculative,” and Granted the Gallery’s Motion.