Homework 4

     I think that appropriation is taking someone else's art or idea to make your own, different art or idea.  When creating art, it's hard to think of something that hasn't already been done.  When appropriating something you can make a deeper meaning or create an entirely different meaning of someone else's art.  Fair Use is a part of copyright that states that one can copy another's work for use of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and research.  I think that appropriation and fair use are enemies because they mean entirely two different things.  Appropriation can be used for criticism or one of the other things listed, but mostly isn't.  It is usually used for one's own artistic purposes and to expand upon the original piece.  But that is against fair use; so therefore, they are enemies.
     After reading the articles on the Cariou and Prince case, I'm not sure that appropriation really has one definition.  I know that appropriation is changing someones work enough that it has a new meaning or can stand on its own, but who can decide that?  Everyone is going to have a different opinion on whether or not something has been changed enough to be appropriated.  This case was a perfect example of that.  I thought for awhile about who they could use to determine whether the photos were changed enough, but I couldn't think of someone.  If they use art experts, those experts all have heir own opinion on appropriation and will all give a different view on these photos.  They will give their opinion on the photos based on their prior opinion on appropriation and that isn't fair. After that I thought about using people who have no knowledge of art or appropriation, but then they wouldn't know enough to give a valid opinion.  That makes appropriation such a fuzzy, grey area.
There's no definitive way of saying whether something is appropriated or not and that is tough for art and artists.  I think that in cases such as this one, the artists that appropriated work should have a solid, in depth explanation of what their appropriation means.  I think that is what hurt Prince, is that he couldn't give an explanation.  Personally, that makes him seem guilty of copyright infringement to me.
    Personally, I am not on Prince's side.  I don't think it is fair for him to create his entire career on appropriation.  Furthermore, it doesn't seem like he has an explanation for how he appropriated the work and changed it.  It seems that he is winning there legal battles and getting away with his lack of appropriation because of his fame and money.  It seems as if he can get away with using anyone's work without changing it.  I mean, just printing out peoples Instagram posts?  Anyone can do that and I'm not sure how he appropriated them in any way.  Sure he changed the captions; but the captions seem offensive and sexist.  It seems to me he just stole their images and made money.  He needs to be held accountable and give explanations as to how he is appropriating these works.