|On left is Patrick Cariou's original photograph, one in a series of Rastafarians. On right is Richard Prince's appropriation art and his justification for the transformative prong of the fair use doctrine.|
Should a well-known appropriation artist be able to profit from (arguably) minimal changes to the original, (arguably) painstaking work of a lesser-known artist?
What about if the appropriation artist makes several million dollars and museums won't display the original art because "it's already been done"? And what if he never seeks permission of the original artist, and states that he doesn't care about that artist's expressive purpose?