May I ask an embarrassing question? Patrick Cariou photographed rasta people in Jamaica and is now selling the portraits "lucratively". How much money did these rasta people make in this story?
Who is really profiting from whom in the chain of even: making oneself look rasta - taking pictures of the rasta - publishing pictures - making collages with the pictures - hanging the collages in a gallery - taking pictures of the collages - using those pictures to report the event in the press...
Each of these step is a voluntary decision by the persons involved, and can thus be constructed as step in the artistic process or the sale of the artistic product.
Copyright law is complex and rather arbitrary. Patrick Cariou took pictures in Jamaica, and (I guess), the models don't get a dime because the law discounts the efforts of the models to look as they do and assigns the value to the photographer. Had he taken the photographs in his own country (France), things would be different and the models rights would be recognized. Then Patrick Cariou's pictures are used to create another work in New York, and the US law rules that Patrick Cariou bears creative right. In the next chain of event, you see the images in the press and the law decides that reporters can do that without Mr Cariou's or Mr Prince's agreement.
So tell me: which is right and which is wrong?