Having posted below about Cariou v Prince I was stating
the position under US law. In the UK, defences to claims of copyright
infringement are framed around the concept of fair dealing and are set out in
the Chapter III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/III. As defined in IPO guidance “Fair dealing allows you only to make use of
a limited, moderate amount of someone else’s work.” See the link to the guidance below: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448274/Exceptions_to_copyright_-_Guidance_for_creators_and_copyright_owners.pdf
s.29 sets out the provisions for fair dealing in
relation to research and private study;
s.30 relates to criticism, review and news
s.30A caricature, parody or pastiche.
Within the appropriation sphere, ss.29 and 30 would appear to
be irrelevant. Looking at
the circumstances in Cariou v Prince, it may be that
Prince would have lost the case if he sought to rely on s.30 – it is arguable
that his work was neither, criticism or review of Cariou’s work. He may have had however, more success relying on s.30A as caricature, because his work ‘could be’
considered grotesque… it seems grotesque to me!!
© Patrick Cariou © Richard Prince
So maybe in
do not have to worry about my pictures being appropriated from Instagram or
Tumblr, so long as I can bring my action in England & Wales????
For me, the whole issue of appropriation is not simply about
the ethics of taking another’s work, amending it and repackaging it as new, but
it raises questions about what is new/original and what does that actually mean.