I read both articles and have concluded to one solution that I think should be enforced to keep artists from being sued. I choose my quotes for both Prince an Baios.
Richard Prince: “My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is fair use.”
Andy Baios: “Prince makes fair use of carious photographs, often altering them very slightly with painting and collage.”
Prince wasn’t punished in his case because the higher courts allowed him to use the photograph for personal expression. Their definition of fair use was that the artist didn’t have to comment of the original work they borrowed. The photograph wasn’t altered completely. It only had minor changes and the court refused to take charge to them because of that. And I believe that is fair use. It wasn’t like Prince took the photo and claimed it as his own. He only made very minor changes. But I still disagree with his approach. I believe it should always be asked of permission to use anyone’s work. If they agree, The should sign a contract and if they don’t give permission, an contract should be signed to that also so that no one can turn around and start accusing each other of unfair use and lie about it and say they didn’t give the person the go ahead.
Andy Baios did the same as Prince, changing the photograph by altering slightly with a pixel look . But the person who was suing him didn’t agree nor did his lawyers. In his case, things were completely different. The person wasn’t forgiving for his use and he should pay legally for the photo he altered. I guess it depends on the person and how they used the photo, the purpose, the meaning and nature. These things matter and are very important. Its scary because you can get sued in the blink of an eye just from trying to do what you love: art. But to be safe, everyone should either come to an agreement or disagreement.