No less startling was the finding that Prince's gallery was also subject to claims for copyright infringement, both directly and as a "vicarious and contributory" party. The gallery became directly liable through publishing a catalog of the offending images.
"A contributory infringer knows that copyright infringement is taking place and materially contributes to that process by promoting and advertising the exhibition of this work, while a vicarious infringer knows or should know that someone is infringing on a copyright. The Gagosian Gallery, according to Judge Batts's decision, "had the right and ability to supervise Prince's work, or at the very least the right and ability (and perhaps even responsibility) to ensure that Prince obtained licenses to use the Photos before they made Prince's Paintings available for sale."
Well, yeah. It's called aiding and abetting. Or being an 'accessory'...