You can spend $90,000 on a Richard Prince “piece of art.” Or you can get the same thing from the original source he ripped off at a 99 percent discount.
Prince used screenshots of people he followed on Instagram and converted them into a large inkjet paintings he then sold for thousands of dollars. Prince did not alert the subjects their Instagram shares were being displayed and sold.
Some of the images were from the popular trend-setting SuicideGirls, whose founder has offered the same pictures printed in the same way for sale for $90 on its website.

Photo: Collector Daily
“Do we have Mr. Prince’s permission to sell these prints? We have the same permission from him that he had from us,” founder Selena Monney (aka Missy Suicide) said in a written statement released Wednesday. “Richard Prince is an artist and he found the images (of) our girls . . . on Instagram as representative of something worth commenting on, part of the zeitgeist, I guess? Thanks Richard!”
Prince has a history of stirring controversy for co-opting the work of other artists and making changes to it to call it his own. Cult of Mac reported last week on the most recent firestorm as some of the people in the Instagram pieces began to learn for the first time their images were being sold for prices starting at $40,000.
Prince began exhibiting and selling his Instagram collection in New York City last fall and again at a New York City art fair earlier this month. The SuicideGirls are a kind of media company with millions of followers social media and the Instagram posts fit with other provocative images Prince curated.
The changes he made were minute. He resized and printed them and each contained a comment he had left on the post.
So far, none of the people in his exhibits have indicated they will challenge him on copyright or seek a portion of the money he made.
Missy Suicide was quite artful in her response and carefully worded statement, saying images from the SuicideGirls social media accounts are often used without permission.
“If I had a nickel for every time someone used our images without permission in a commercial endeavor, I’d be able to spend $90,000 on art,” she said.
SuicideGirls is a popular website and online community for alternative beauty and indie culture. Tasteful softcore pin-up style photos are featured on the website and its various social media sites, including Instagram, where the punk-rock beauties attract more than 2 million followers – including Prince.
Proceeds the SuicideGirls sales will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
21 responses to “SuicideGirls give ripoff artist a taste of his own medicine”
“Richard Prince is an artist” NO, he’s obviously a hack and a thief…. What a dink.
Legally, he is not a thief.
Yes you are, Richard. Get back to your basement.
That was almost funny. Good try.
Just like your attempt at using facts. Try again.
if i made a copy of his copy, could i then sell it for $90,000?
yes.
And I just deleted Instagram from my iPhone. F it.
Well that escalated quickly!
I don’t even blame this Prince guy. I blame the rich d-bags willing to drop $90k for this “art”.
Exactly!
It’s what artists do, a urinal is worth very little as a urinal, but mounted and put in a gallery it is art. As Duchamp demonstrated. It’s the idea that matters,
He’s not a hack, he’s not a thief and he’s not doing anything wrong. What he IS doing, is taking full advantage of people who are stupid enough to believe that they still own stuff they post on the Internet.
Personally, I think it’s equally stupid to pay him 90000$ for it, but what’s he supposed to do??? Say NO!???? HA!!! Fat chance! I’d certainly take the money and run too!
If you put something on a website that you do not own… face it…it’s no loger yours! You just gave it away.
Period.
Actually, he IS a thief, and hack, and he IS doing something wrong. Stupid is almost everything you said ; stupid is not understanding copyright laws; stupid is calling other people stupid without knowing what you’re talking about.
“Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit. Copyright which subsists in a photograph, protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his/her work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied.”
Nope. Stupid is not understanding the very basic fact that when you upload a picture to a website you do not own…YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR OWNERSHIP OF THE PICTURE… PERIOD.
IT’S WRITTEN IN THE FREAKIN LICENSE IN BLACK AN WHITE.
Learn to read… Idiot.
Legally, he is not a thief. Morally, that is for you to judge I guess.
Your definition of copyright law is fine. Have you actually red the Instagram license? Have you red the part of that license that explains to you that THEY now own the version of the picture that you uploaded to THEIR website? Did you realize when you clicked “yes” that YOU WERE GIVING UP YOUR “exclusive” COPYRIGHTS!?
If anything, Instagram has standing to sue MAYBE… NOT THE USERS!
Apparently YOU are the one who doesn’t understand Copyright law… thanks.
Yes, i’m a photographer, I am perfectly aware of Instagram’s Terms of Use. You on the other hand, are not.
Again:
1 – Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service.
They DON’T own your photos. I’m guessing you are reading some “part” that doesn’t exist.
And again, he is both legally AND morally a thief. You license your photos to Instagram forfeiting royalties, but you are not granting ownership (like it says oh their Terms). You can still license the same photo to any other third party WITH royalties (that’s the non-exclusive part), because you still OWN your artwork. This, does NOT apply to some random user, who takes your artwork and decides to sell it in some random gallery for him to profit!
And i’m pretty sure this “artist” also didn’t sub-license the photos from Instagram. So in this case he can be sued by the original copyright holder.
OK… you know what, I remember something and you’re right about the copyright issue. When uploading, you’re actually granting an unrestricted and unlimited license, as an actual transfer of copyrights requires a clear document of transferal duly signed by both parties. Sorry, I forgot that part.
BTW, I’m not debating that the guy’s a douche, and I would LOVE to be completely wrong… I just don’t think this is illegal, that’s all.
I still believe it’s stupid to upload what you or anyone would consider valuable art to a site like Instagram, but that’s irrelevant, it’s just my opinion.
Now in your legal opinion, what’s different then, between this case and the case of Cariou vs Price?
I’m not familiar with all the details of the Cariou/Prince case, but I think at the time the courts said it could be considered fair use because Prince had made a significant amount of changes to Cariou’s photos. He used drawings and collages on top of the photos, making it essentially a mixed media format, and transforming the original artworks. Nevertheless, the case was latter settled by both parties, so I assume some sort of compensation or licensing was agreed upon.
In this case, this guy is just resizing artwork and adding his “commentary”, so i’m sure there are even more reasons to sue (and win). I believe the main problem (and i’m betting this is why he does what he does) is that the affected parties don’t want to bother/can’t afford to litigate against him.
I’m not from the US either and no legal expert. I’m just generally interested in Copyright issues and have followed some Tech copyright cases extensively. I do hope someone sues, and personally, I think Instagram should help whoever wants to sue the guy.
I’ve seen so many weird copyright decisions and rich people can make those drag on for years… I have doubts…
But if Instagram could be convinced that it would be fantastic PR for them… maybe.
but if there are many of them, i think the future price will drop down… ? no?