Re: Copyrights

richard Sullivan (richsul@roadrunner.com)
Sun, 18 Feb 1996 22:23:02 -0700

>Koons was, of course, enjoined from producing more of the objects. But he
>also had to give one of the existing ones to the photographer! Since the
>value of such a Koons work at the time was, I would guess, in the thirty
>to fifty thousand-dollar range, or the equivalent of the sale of maybe
>twenty thousand greeting cards at two dollars each, at the end of the day
>the photographer made a tidy profit (presumably Koons also paid court/legal
>fees) -- not to mention all the publicity!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Judy

Reminds me of the story concerning Warhol (another great appropriator) and a
photographer. The photograph was taken during a 60's civil rights
event-police-riot-demonstration-whathaveyou in Alabama of a cop and dogs
attacking a black man. Warhol used the image in a one of series of
silkscreens, one of which is in the collection of the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art. It was a rather famous image as a photograph, and some here
on the list may remember it as well as the Warhol print.

Seems that said photographer called Mr. Andy about the rip off. Andy said
that he should come over to his studio and they'd talk. (I read this story
maybe 10-15 years ago so some details may be foggy.) As I remember from the
story, Andy profusely apologized. The photographer who was acting as his own
lawyer (fool), thought that an apology was enough and thanked Andy for his
concern. As he was leaving, Andy said that the photographer could pick out a
print. The photographer picked a nice Warhol silkscreen image of flowers (no
fool now). The photographer now heads back downtown to his own studio and on
way to the subway, goes by a gallery and sees a sign announcing a Warhol
exhibit. The photographer goes in, sees same image on wall ---- and price!
Photographer now needs kick in chest to start breathing again. This was at
Warhol's high period, and I dare say the print might have been in the
$25,000.00 range (someone more knowledgeable here may have a better
estimate.) It would be interesting to speculate (not here though) whether
the photographer might have gotten more or less if the lawyers had gotten
involved.

Dick Sullivan