ABOUT COPYRIGHT - and my Facebook question for the "Experts"

This post is already past its 'Best Before Date' : NEW DATA POISONING TOOL LETS ARTISTS FIGHT BACK AGAINST AI - IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?.
But here is a interesting addendum to this:

Richard Prince Must Pay $650K+ to Artists for Using Their Work

Quote:
“When I sued Richard Prince more than seven years ago, it was hard to imagine I’d be, along with Donald Graham, part of these history-making judgments finally holding Prince accountable for his conduct,” McNatt said in an email to Hyperallergic. “It’s a victory not just for me, but for all working artists like me. We might not have the same profile of a celebrity artist, but we deserve credit and compensation for our work.” Source

On Facebook there are so many 'Experts' that rant about AI, in posts and with comments on posts, so I posted this item, with this text added:

While so many artists get their panties in a knot over AI, here is a high level case of clear copyright infringement that took almost 8 years to come to a judgement. Involved are some of the top galleries in New York, such as Gagosian.

And guess what? Dead silence! I even tagged some of those people, that usually have so much to say, but nobody said a word.

Please read the entire article on Hyperallergic - it is incredible! Then think about what I wrote above and compare with my previous post on the subject of AI.

Just so you know how Richard Prince does his Portrait Art, here is a quote by him:

In 1984 I took some portraits.
The way I did it was different. The way had nothing to do with the tradition of portraiture.
If you wanted me to do your portrait, you would give me at least five photographs that had already been taken of yourself, that were in your possession (you owned them, they were yours), and more importantly . . . that you were already happy with.
You would give me the five you liked and I would pick the one I liked. I would rephotograph the one I liked and that would be your portrait. Simple. Direct. To the point . . .
Foolproof. Quote

I guess the judge didn't think so. That this took almost 8 years is incredible, considering that even the most rank fool would know how Copyright works. The saying ...you owned them, they were yours.... is of course patently false: the original photographer (or artist) always retains copyright on his/her work. In some rare cases it could be possible that you as the artist could sell your copyright to someone else, but this does not happen often, and it has to be recorded.

I had written in the past about Copyright, unfortunately the definitive article on the Visionary Art Gallery site is not available anymore, since the site is currently unpublished, but the gist of it I had posted on my Wordpress blog ALL ABOUT COPYRIGHT - and just so you have something else to look at other than the image on top of this post, here is the illustration from my Wordpress blog: