Recommended Posts


  1. How come this isn’t copyright infringement by Prince? Surely he has created (I use that term loosely) a derivative work?

    I think the world has gone fecking mad…..


  2. Sounds like derivative work to me. Not that I agree with it. And $3.4M for giant photos of bits of ads? Where do I get in line for THAT gravy train? Foolishness knows no bounds.

  3. I read that The Philip Morris Company owns the photographs and that means there will likely be no challenge on infringement and that set’s up a horrible precedent for photography. Maybe another use like this will come around to change that.

  4. i hope this one was sold by an early collector and is not a withheld print by the artist. so someone else than the “artist” is making the money.
    its not unusual that artists having given away all their early work are not earning a cent while their works are selling like hot cakes.

  5. There are other ways to set a precedent. Anyone know any loan sharks with extra time on their hands?

Comments are closed for this article!