On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year’s presidential campaign: a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, and has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.
The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington…
The AP’s director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. “AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey’s attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution.”
“We believe fair use protects Shepard’s right to do what he did here,” says Fairey’s lawyer, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School…
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street…
The image will be included this month at a Fairey exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston and a mixed-media stenciled collage version has been added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.
Which side are you on?
Tough call but I’d say Obama as president and a public figure, of course makes his images public property.
That’s just me and not based on any legal grounds.
Even an Idiot can see that the picture is “inspired” by the picture and not edited/photoshopped.
Clearly fair use!
Newspapers should try making their money on stories instead of the “way” of mpaa and others…
Sorry. Don’t see it. The background is different. I don’t see how they have a case unless the AP is claiming to own the likeness of Barack Obama.
Not fair use. I think the photographer should get credit for the image. This art work wouldn’t have been possible without the photograph.
Well, 1&2 are clearly wrong. Fair use is just that–to use to comment on a news item and other fairly limited issues. What is not “fair” is to make profit from in an on-going commerical enterprise. There is no “public figure” exception for that.
Likewise, was that just a typo?==as second photo is exactly and obviously a photoshoped version of the first==and the artist/entrepreneur even admits to it==pretty stupid.
Actually, I’d think the best argument is actually that ONLY Obama has a cause of action unless the AP got a release for commericial purposes? But probably both as the capture/ownership of the image is clearly AP’s under fair use doctrine==but how can they sue for misappropriation if they don’t have the commercialization rights?
Stay tuned I guess.
Let us not say that Obama is on our side, but that we are on Obama’s side.
Is it photoshop. Angle looks slightly different.
The artist is a troublemaker. There are a dozen ways to make that image and stay clear of the copyright, but he admits taking it from AP. Throw the book at him, just because he’s a dumbass.
I agree — it’s stolen. THAT SAID why did it take a friggin’ YEAR to say anything???
Its just dicks being dicks. It isn’t going to change my already low opinion of the AP and lawyers.
@4,5 – If the final piece was anything photo-like there would be some issue. But, the final image is obviously drawn (not photoshopped) inspired by the photo and the subject (whose face is everywhere). Hence – fair use. Artist can be inspired by anything.
Additionally, there is clear historical and court tested case. Roy Lichtenstein. His paintings were almost dot-by-dot copies of the popular comics on a grand scale. But, courts ruled that even his choice of the copied segment represented artistic choice and that it was fair use inspiration, as long as he did the image himself, no matter how identical to the original it is.
The original photo is just the inspiration, the original photo is not his work but the cartoonish image is ALL his work.
If there was no allowance of one item being the inspiration for another then we would not have advanced further than cave paintings.
The original photo is copyrighted. The photographer can get royalties from anyone who uses it. The poster picture is similar enough to qualify as a copy and since the artist said his inspiration was the photo, he should pay royalties.
As long as there is no commercial use of the pictures, then Obama would get royalties. Oopps, it looks the artist will be paying royalties to both Obama for using his likeness and the photographer for using his photo.
#13
You are an idiot, get a clue.
11 is right and the rest of you are wannabe lawyers.
ahhh ha ha ha…. this fucktard just lost their case for them:
Quote: “The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission,” the AP’s director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.
Ahh earth to dick slurper with many lawyers that have no clue, his work IS NOT a photograph, it’s nothing like a photo. I bet the guy didn’t use a camera, so how is even remotely a “photograph”.
The first thing I thought of was Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s soup piece or Marilyn Monroe. Same thing to me. Pop art.
I think #13 has it nailed.
Hmmm…and if one does more research they can find out that the original photographer is trying to figure out why the AP say’s it’s their copyright when he never signed a contract with them…and he likes the artwork 😉
Oh, and “Fair Use” has a provision for “derivative works” which this art would fall into. So perhaps everyone spouting off with information should look into derivative works and see what their opinion is…
sometimes you people amaze me *sigh*
Its not the same photo. The AP has no case.
Was Andy Warhol’s paintings of a Campbell’s Soup can copyright infringement?
#19, krager,
Derivative use does not include profiting commercially.
#14, hazza,
#13
You are an idiot, get a clue.
Very enlightening, informative, and well constructed argument. I bet the girls like it when you talk that way.
Does your mother know you use language like that in #16?
Uh oh, what if they start looking at the pictures on dvorak.org?
Did the Joy of Tech pay John C. Dvorak or was it fair use?
19 has it. You clearly don’t have the right to mechanically reproduce the work of others and sell it. That isn’t what happened.
This is somebodies impression based on a the picture and is by no means an exact reproduction. Nothing matches up. Many things were no doubt changed on purpose.
No copy right was broken and the people sueing don’t seem to own the copyright according to person that does own the copyright.
#23
The evidence against your argument is so overwhelming and obvious that you should be beaten with the clue 4×2 to within an inch of your life. Just for you though:
1. How many tabloids pay Britney “royalties” for publishing photos of her pantyless? (Hint: it starts with zero and goes nowhere)
2. Similar enough? You retard.
3. Anything created by an artist is copyrighted by the artist.
4. The photo was inspiration, the work was wholly and solely a creation of the artist.
5. Do you even know what the term “commercial use” is?
6. My mum could not give a pinch of cock sucking monkey turd what sort of language I use on a blog.
OK,
EVEn tho it was taken from AP, it was augmented. It has enough change to be an original..
He cropped it, he RE Colored it, he LINE drew it..There is nothing of the original..
First, Shepard Fairey has not directly profited from this work. He has certainly gained fame from it, but he has never sold the image so as to avoid this very issue.
Second, the work is not a “photoshop” or “mechanically” copied. It is clearly inspired by the A.P. photo, which Fairey openly credits. The work though is all his own and stems from his experience as a silk screener. You can clearly see the limited color palette just like silk screeners use to minimize complexity.
Understanding these facts means the work definitely falls under Fair Use. My opinion is Fairey should be unfettered to make a profit from it because it is inspired by, but not a copy of the A.P. photo.
Somebody was at the right place, at the right time, aimed and pressed a button. And the results becomes a copyrightable work? And did Obama sign a release form or get paid for posing for the photo? This isn’t the modeling game. It’s N-E-W-S! And it only become worth suing over, when somebody realizes how much money is being made off it. The origin photo wasn’t what made the money (not nearly as much, anyway). It was the recolorized version, of the original. Which takes a bit more talent at finessing to get it right, than the guy who pointed his camera and froze a moment. It wasn’t done in some studio, with lighting and props. If it were a bolt of lightning, caught on film, and somebody made a t-shirt from that. Would that be a copyrighted work too? Does God get a cut of the profit for creating it? More and more, things of nature, time, and history, are claimed as someone’s property. The Native Americans couldn’t fathom the settlers’ mania for claiming title to the land they chanced upon. Something that came from the greed of old world kings and monarchs. There ought to be either limits to what gets copyrighted, or for how long. And not these “I didn’t make a fuss about it, until someone else made a mint off my photo image” suits.
#27 hazza
The force is strong with young Skywalker