What do you think of the AP copyright infringement allegation against Shepard Fairey?

[my-art-space.livejournal.com]

A comparison showing Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama next to Shepard Fairey’s ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ posters. The portrait of Obama by Shepard Fairey is a stencil portrait. Fairey created a stencil over a scanned and enlarged version of the photograph that was slightly tilted according to various articles. Fairey and a gallery that represents him has stated that he did in fact use the Garcia photograph as the base image for his Obama posters according to news articles. The Assosicated Press claims to own the copyright to Garcia's photograph and  desire compensation from Shepard Fairey. Fairey's lawyer states that Fairey did nothing wrong and that is use of the image falls under fair use. Do you think his use of the image falls under fair use? Since the photograph itself is not widely known some lawyers have suggested that Fairey's use does not fall under fair use. In order for it to be fair use there must be a dialogue between the old work and the new work that is obvious to the viewer-- obvious to the majority of the public. Unfortunatey for Shepard the majority of people, including Garcia and the AP, did not make the connection between Garcia's photograph and Fairey's Obama posters. So did Fairey fail at fair use? If so, did he willfully infringe on the photograph?

I have posted several articles about Shepard Fairey and fair use that might be of interest to some of you. My thoughts, http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/art-law-professionals-weigh-in-on.html

Comments

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Tracing =/= fair use.
Artists want their copyright respected and photographers deserve the same.

[lyosha.livejournal.com]

Does this same thing really need to be posted in every online community?

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

eh... I think there is a dreadful lack of understanding about what "copyright" means (I LOL when someone "Copyrights" an icon or macro that has images from someone else, or a general character).
I guess the repetition can be annoying but this crosses multiple interests (art + politics = everything ever)

[my-art-space.livejournal.com]

Given the fact that the mainstream media has faild to report on past allegations concerning Fairey, yes.

[eddy-xeno.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's fair use. =/ Still seems kinda anal to blow it up this much though, seems like the kinda thing the two groups should be able to settle without making it to the internet.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Still seems kinda anal to blow it up this much though, seems like the kinda thing the two groups should be able to settle without making it to the internet.

The reason it is being blown up so big, is because this is by no means the first time Fairey has done this and people are getting fed up.

This article shows several images that Fairey plagerized/infringed upon.
It's very informative.

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

[stripedpony.livejournal.com]

Ypu'd think people would stop commissioning him with him stealing others work so much. Such a risk to be sued for copyright infringement.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Apathy makes people blind.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Hello, Starfinder?

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

& todd goldman xD

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

Sometimes it seems like no matter how poor someone's business' practices are, there's always someone who'll hire/commission them. Ugh :/

[eddy-xeno.livejournal.com]

Ahh, thank you!And...wow, friggin' scary. D:

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

*blink* I thought the purpose of this community was to warn people about bad artists, bad commissioners, and art theft? I dunno about you, but I'm never going to be commissioning Shepard Fairey...

I'm a little baffled why this was approved. It may be a topic worth discussing, but why discuss it here and not somewhere where it actually belongs? This isn't "art_philosophy" or even "art_ethics." It's "artists_beware." What am I supposed to beware of here?

[tealizard.livejournal.com]

I believe people actually do commission him, so just because you don't doesn't mean others won't.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

No, but perhaps you might be one of the people he steals from someday? There's always a chance.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

First of all, reports of art theft are allowed here.

Second of all, considering the nature of the community and sadly limited knowledge members even here have about copyright I think it's more than appropriate to inform people about where the line lies.

[allykat.livejournal.com]

IMO, this is OT for the community.

[houndofloki.livejournal.com]

Not that this isn't an interesting subject and all, but it's already been posted to and thoroughly discussed on pretty much every LJ community even vaguely related to art or politics.

Starting to fall pretty firmly into the "dead horse" category.

[thrashbear.livejournal.com]

This is the first time I've seen this article. You're a member of more communities than I am. It's not a dead horse to those who haven't seen it yet.

[bucktowntiger.livejournal.com]

what he said

[fiercereaper.livejournal.com]

First time seeing it for me.

[pariah-kittie.livejournal.com]

This is the first time I've seen this :/

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

I just read this, actually, after accidentally clicking on a poster here that had a link to this as their first entry (I meant to go back to my f-list heh)

Really found this part of your article interesting:

Orr’s put a SARs protective mask over the famous Fairey image and titled it ‘Protect’. Shepard Fairey sent Orr a cease-and-desist letter and threatened legal action even though the Obey Giant image is considered iconic-- thus, Orr’s use of the image could be considered fair use. If anything, Orr’s use of the image falls under fair use more so than Shepard Fairey’s fair use claim involving the Associated Press photograph of Obama. After all, the photograph of Obama itself was not widely known.

IMHO, I can forgive someone morally (if not legally) for this sort of thing if their practices are consistent even when they are on the losing end of copyright. The fact that he demands other people not appropriate his work pretty much makes him a hypocrite in my book, and I hope he loses any copyright claims made against him. I hate it when people feel entitled to other people's property (intellectual or physical - apparently he's been arrested for vandalizing arting buildings without permission) but don't freely give theirs own out in return.

[trianine.livejournal.com]

Aww, I had no clue he was on the other end of the fight and reacted that way. It's a shame, really. In this case, I side with Fairey on the use of the image, because I think he brought significant change to the AP photo. And I'd hate to see artists rights choked by overly strict definitions of copy infringements.

As much as I respect and artists want and need to make money, part of what makes art significant is its ability to redesign and repurpose the world around us. And I believe that is exactly what both Fairey and Orr did.

Honestly to AP. How significant was the photo of Obama among a stream of like photos? How significant did it become when it was transformed into the iconic work that it is now.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

Here (http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm) is an even more scathing evaluation of his work D:

A particularly juicy quote moonlitlake cited in the ONTD_political discussion on this creep (http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/2232344.html), ""Posters and graphics made in the heat of political struggles are often made by anonymous individuals or groups that want to keep the images in the public domain for use in further struggle. It is unfortunate that Fairey is attempting to personally capitalize on the generosity of others and privatize and enclose the visual commons (as seen by the prominent copyright symbols on his website and products).""

The irony (or hypocrisy), it does not end.

[pariah-kittie.livejournal.com]

"And I'd hate to see artists rights choked by overly strict definitions of copy infringements."

If an artist (or photographer) wishes a photo not be used for others to profit from, I think that's pretty fair. If the posters were simply for display and awareness it might be a different story, or if the photographer allowed for it.
In other words, under copyright law "derivative" works cannot be published unless the 2nd artist has a license (basically permission) to do so.

[anjel-kitty.livejournal.com]

I for one am happy you posted this. It sort of shows us the international light on copyright infringement that we deal with on a much smaller level.

And its interesting to see how these subjects play out in a more legal perspective.

[thrashbear.livejournal.com]

Detractors aside, thank you for sharing this. This is the only time I've seen this article, so people's bitching they're seeing it "everywhere", means they are members of communities I am not. I know I'm not the only one.

This applies to me because this is my medium as well: tracing. A customer asks me to do a woodburning portrait of a favorite pet, which I trace from a photograph. In my own work, I'll use a picture I like from books, magazines, or the internet. Yes, I will sell the finished piece. I don't hide the fact that I used a photograph as a reference, and I never pass my stuff off as original images.

So this article is VERY topical, if nothing else because it speaks to me and my work personally.

[anjel-kitty.livejournal.com]

I really need to get some mushroom wood burnings from you. I think that would be a great gift for my adviser.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

I guess the question is, did the customer take the photo themselves, and/or do you take yourself whatever photos you use? If not, you might want to, to protect yourself, since you sell your art.

[heatherbeast.livejournal.com]

This post is the first time I've seen this particular topic pop up online. It's informative. We post about tracers all the time here, independent of their status as an 'amateur' or a 'professional'.

[morning-dragon.livejournal.com]

That is a very popular pose for Obama and you can see it in the news and on several other areas while he is talking or after. I would say fair use.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

This isn't about similar poses, we're not talking about sparkle dogs on DA here. We're talking about a blatant trace of a copyrighted image which is being commercially exploited.

[grimmhooke.livejournal.com]

Agreed. It's not like he simply eyeballed a few pictures of Obama and drew this himself. I found this picture to be a better comparison:

[koi-suru-usagi.livejournal.com]

I personally think that no one would have a problem with it if the print/trace had not made a shit-load of money from shirts and pins and posters and stuff.

The photographer is just probably butt-hurt over the fact that some guy is making more money off his work then he did.

[pariah-kittie.livejournal.com]

But it makes sense. Even if it wasn't a photograph - if someone took your work (which you OWN copyright to), altered it and sold it for who knows how many hundreds or thousands of dollars, you wouldn't be bothered one bit by it?

[koi-suru-usagi.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I would be upset yes.
I'm just saying that is probably the main cause though.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

It sounds like even the artist and his reps say the posters are derivative works. Derivative works require licensing under copyright laws.