I agree with the outcome of this case. I think appropriation is different from plagiarism because details are added and more ideas are placed. this changes the overall concept of the photo. personally, i still think credit should be given to those artists who made his overall concept ideas possible. but, i do think using their photos is not complete plagiarism.
I agree with the outcome of the Richard Prince case, because appropriation is completely different from plagiarism. Appropriation allows the artist to use the work of others to create an original work of art, while plagiarism is when someone takes credit for the unchanged work of others. Prince technically used the work of others as a base for his own ideas, which still allowed his creations to be original. Appropriation puts a fresh spin on something that has already been done, without fully stealing the idea. Overall Prince used the creations of others in a new way to get across a different message. Therefore, I do think that the outcome of the case was the right one, since appropriation isn't plagiarism.
I agree with the outcome of this case because I believe Prince used appropriation to create his image. Appropriation sounds the same as plagiarism, however they are different. Appropriation is taking someone else's photo but making it your own. Prince used the same photo, but with a different idea and twist. I think it is right that he won this case because of his use of appropriation.
I also agree with the outcome of this case. I believe that appropriation is different than plagiarism because although the artist will take someone else's work, they add on to it and add their own personal touch. Plagiarism is when someone takes someone else's work, without permission and doesn't change it at all or doesn't use it for a new purpose. Because Prince modified the images and added to them creating a new idea, what he did should be justified as ok. Credit should be given to the original artist, and if that is done, then I think appropriation is fine.
I agree with the verdict of this case as long as the artists appropriates the images as his own. I do not agree however if the artist uses another artist's work without adding elements to make it his/her own. I believe that is was right that Prince should have won. Prince used other works, yet he added his own element to make this own. Therefore Prince recreated and redesigned the work so it can no longer be compared to the original.
I agree with the outcome because I think that when people make artwork, they do it to give people ideas and inspiration. Someone can be inspired by some one else's work of art and want to either add on to it or incorporate it into something else. His work was his own idea, just utilizing someone else's work to enhance their own. Prince used another's work to base his ideas off of. He made it completely obvious that he added someone else's work his own, which I think is not wrong.
I agree with the outcome of this case because although Prince used someone else's work without permission, he added his own ideas to it, therefore making it his own through the use of appropriation. Plagiarism is when one takes someone else's idea and claims it as their own, but doesn't contribute anything of their own to that idea. If Prince had used plagiarism, he wouldn't have created a new piece of art expressing different ideas from the original photograph. t think that as long as he gave the original owner of the photograph credit for his part of the artwork, it is okay that Prince used someone else's photograph.
I also agree (like many others above) with the outcome of this particular case. Although he did take someone else's work, but he also changed it to make it his own. What he did in my opinion is maybe not fair or right, but i would not say that it is necessarily illegal. I think it was rude, but he changed it and therefore made it his own work. If he had asked, then I think there would be no problem in doing what he did. I think it is cool when artists build off of each others ideas!
I agree with the outcome of this case. I think that appropriation is okay as long as you make the photo your own. I've discovered over the course of the past week that I don't like making appropriation obvious. Blatantly copying someone else's work and changing one or two details, to me, feels wrong. For example, taking a photograph of someone else's photo and changing nothing while calling it "yours" is stealing. It wasn't your idea behind that photograph, it was someone else's. I think it would be interesting if someone copied Richard Prince's photo and wrote it off as their own. I'd like to see what he'd do.
I agree with the outcome of this case. I think appropriation is different from stealing but if you were to appropriated, you should give some credit to the picture you appropriated. It isn't stealing if you take a picture of a picture and put it into another picture. However, if you just take a picture of a picture, I think that is stealing. They are 2 different things but could be interpretated different way from different people.
I agree, just just like everyone else, with the outcome of this case. Prince appropriated Cariou's work, he did not steal it. I agree with Halle that he should give some credit to the artists' work that he manipulates. But, the final picture was made with Prince's own thoughts and ideas and that's why I think the outcome makes sense.
I agree with the outcome of this case. Prince interpreted the art in his own way, and altered it to reflect his thoughts in which the piece evoked. This resulted in his own masterpiece (incorporating Cariou's photos) which conveyed a completely different message than the original work by Cariou. In this way, the pieces of afrt are completely different, although I think the photographer should earn recognition for his work. This art interpretation shouldn't be illegal, it's an amazing way of learning and growing in the art community. Appropriation is completely different from plagiarism because of this collaborative aspect and the change of the art's meaning.
I agree with the outcome of this case, but I definitely think too much appropriation is just that...too much. I think art is something that is different to everyone. One person may be completely opposed to building on others' ideas and another person may think it is better to take another's idea and add your own touch. I think there is a balance. I agree with Caroline that taking someone else's work and changing small details is plagiarism-appropriation, where using someone else's work to enhance your own work is appropriate-appropriation :) I would assume that the 5 works of Prince's which were not certainly "fair" fell into the category of plagiarism-appropriation.
I agree with the outcome of this case. I think appropriation is different from plagiarism because details are added and more ideas are placed. this changes the overall concept of the photo. personally, i still think credit should be given to those artists who made his overall concept ideas possible. but, i do think using their photos is not complete plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of the Richard Prince case, because appropriation is completely different from plagiarism. Appropriation allows the artist to use the work of others to create an original work of art, while plagiarism is when someone takes credit for the unchanged work of others. Prince technically used the work of others as a base for his own ideas, which still allowed his creations to be original. Appropriation puts a fresh spin on something that has already been done, without fully stealing the idea. Overall Prince used the creations of others in a new way to get across a different message. Therefore, I do think that the outcome of the case was the right one, since appropriation isn't plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case because I believe Prince used appropriation to create his image. Appropriation sounds the same as plagiarism, however they are different. Appropriation is taking someone else's photo but making it your own. Prince used the same photo, but with a different idea and twist. I think it is right that he won this case because of his use of appropriation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the outcome of this case. I believe that appropriation is different than plagiarism because although the artist will take someone else's work, they add on to it and add their own personal touch. Plagiarism is when someone takes someone else's work, without permission and doesn't change it at all or doesn't use it for a new purpose. Because Prince modified the images and added to them creating a new idea, what he did should be justified as ok. Credit should be given to the original artist, and if that is done, then I think appropriation is fine.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the verdict of this case as long as the artists appropriates the images as his own. I do not agree however if the artist uses another artist's work without adding elements to make it his/her own. I believe that is was right that Prince should have won. Prince used other works, yet he added his own element to make this own. Therefore Prince recreated and redesigned the work so it can no longer be compared to the original.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome because I think that when people make artwork, they do it to give people ideas and inspiration. Someone can be inspired by some one else's work of art and want to either add on to it or incorporate it into something else. His work was his own idea, just utilizing someone else's work to enhance their own. Prince used another's work to base his ideas off of. He made it completely obvious that he added someone else's work his own, which I think is not wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case because although Prince used someone else's work without permission, he added his own ideas to it, therefore making it his own through the use of appropriation. Plagiarism is when one takes someone else's idea and claims it as their own, but doesn't contribute anything of their own to that idea. If Prince had used plagiarism, he wouldn't have created a new piece of art expressing different ideas from the original photograph. t think that as long as he gave the original owner of the photograph credit for his part of the artwork, it is okay that Prince used someone else's photograph.
ReplyDeleteI also agree (like many others above) with the outcome of this particular case. Although he did take someone else's work, but he also changed it to make it his own. What he did in my opinion is maybe not fair or right, but i would not say that it is necessarily illegal. I think it was rude, but he changed it and therefore made it his own work. If he had asked, then I think there would be no problem in doing what he did. I think it is cool when artists build off of each others ideas!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case. I think that appropriation is okay as long as you make the photo your own. I've discovered over the course of the past week that I don't like making appropriation obvious. Blatantly copying someone else's work and changing one or two details, to me, feels wrong. For example, taking a photograph of someone else's photo and changing nothing while calling it "yours" is stealing. It wasn't your idea behind that photograph, it was someone else's. I think it would be interesting if someone copied Richard Prince's photo and wrote it off as their own. I'd like to see what he'd do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case. I think appropriation is different from stealing but if you were to appropriated, you should give some credit to the picture you appropriated. It isn't stealing if you take a picture of a picture and put it into another picture. However, if you just take a picture of a picture, I think that is stealing. They are 2 different things but could be interpretated different way from different people.
ReplyDeleteI agree, just just like everyone else, with the outcome of this case. Prince appropriated Cariou's work, he did not steal it. I agree with Halle that he should give some credit to the artists' work that he manipulates. But, the final picture was made with Prince's own thoughts and ideas and that's why I think the outcome makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case. Prince interpreted the art in his own way, and altered it to reflect his thoughts in which the piece evoked. This resulted in his own masterpiece (incorporating Cariou's photos) which conveyed a completely different message than the original work by Cariou. In this way, the pieces of afrt are completely different, although I think the photographer should earn recognition for his work. This art interpretation shouldn't be illegal, it's an amazing way of learning and growing in the art community. Appropriation is completely different from plagiarism because of this collaborative aspect and the change of the art's meaning.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the outcome of this case, but I definitely think too much appropriation is just that...too much. I think art is something that is different to everyone. One person may be completely opposed to building on others' ideas and another person may think it is better to take another's idea and add your own touch. I think there is a balance. I agree with Caroline that taking someone else's work and changing small details is plagiarism-appropriation, where using someone else's work to enhance your own work is appropriate-appropriation :) I would assume that the 5 works of Prince's which were not certainly "fair" fell into the category of plagiarism-appropriation.
ReplyDelete