Copyright story on Yahoo

[andymania]

Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_en_ot/obama_poster

[Jem'ennuie]

AP is fully in their right in this. The artist should not have used a copyrighted image for personal gains.

"Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed specially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist."

So he's charging money for a picture that he didn't even take....The "fair use policy" argument from his attorney isn't going to work either. This is not about money for the AP, they need to be protective of their shots and their photographers.

The artist is just a dumbass thinking he could get away with distributing a photograph on such a scale from such a big news-network without anyone going "hey, that's our picture". And now someone did, and justice is working like it should, end of story.

[pitabread]

I have to side with the AP on this. The image is a blatant derivative work of a copyrighted image the artist didn't have rights to. The fact that it's being exploited for commercial gain makes it worse. I don't think "fair use" applied here, imho.

[DeadlyFreeze]

Fairey isn't making money off of it, so it falls under 'fair use'.

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[Jem'ennuie]

Fairey isn't making money off of it, so it falls under 'fair use'.

Did you even read the article?

[DeadlyFreeze]

Did you?

Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist

[Jem'ennuie]

Did you?

Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist

It's a copyright image, and people are making money from it, whoever it is, thanks to this guy. You have to be some kind of retard to not see that the AP is correct here. Ugh, whatever, people and their personal rights to do everything they like without consequences.

[Viridis]

Freeze is right, I think; Farey created the image but simply made lots of posters to distribute on the streets to promote the campaign, he's not charging money for them. And if he's not making money off of it directly (just off the Change/Vote ones he made later with images that he had permission to use) they might be able to argue fair use.

From what I understand, Farey pulls this stuff a lot, and gets away with it much like Andy Warhol or Lichtenstein did. There are legal battles all over the place, but in the end, everyone just remembers his work that much more.

[DeadlyFreeze]

Ah man your right... god damn people taking things no one wants, turning them in to art and giving them away for free. Hes a real son of a bitch.

[Zirngibism]

I'm no expert on this legal stuff, but to me it looks like his art is different enough from the ref...
Which is not to say he shouldn't have asked AP anyway, just wondering who decides (and how?) whether something is too close to the reference.

If someone, for example, were to colorpick the exact colors from an image, but change the proportions a bit, how much less of an infringement would it be?

[Jem'ennuie]

Ah man your right... god damn people taking things no one wants, turning them in to art and giving them away for free. Hes a real son of a bitch.

Actually it's not like that at all.

If the reversed happened and a company stole a picture from an individual and then used it for personal gain, in whatever shape or form, everyone would pull the alarm bell. And every joe smuck would be crucifying the company.

My mom works at a news agency and every single piece of material, every photo, every single piece of text, every letter, gets checked to make sure that it's not copyrighted. And if it is, the person is contacted and either the picture is used with permission or it's not. This is standard in every news agency.

Someone stealing copyright material under arts is usually an "abomination", but when the actual photographers of the AP, which are photographers who go to places where you would pee you pants, needs their rights protected, they are pictures "no one wanted anyway" and suddenly it's -ok- to steal it. Since companies are evil and libertarian rights now mean that every nutjob has rights to do anything they like in the name of "freedom", "democracy" or plain stupidity, this is somehow different, well it's not.

[Not Pink]

Really, I don't know the technically limitations of it, but if the image is changed enough from it's original state, Fairey has right to copyright it in his name, selling it is another thing, but I know there is some way for him to (c) it.

I thought AP was free public domain news anyway? Do other companies seriously pay AP for every news article they source from them? AP must be bog-damn rich.

Fairey has done some stuff for those of us proficient in Graffiti, so I'd have to give this one to him out of respect for what he's done, but illegal is illegal and everyone should be treated equal. I say it's for the court to decide.

[Arshes Nei]

I thought AP was free public domain news anyway? Do other companies seriously pay AP for every news article they source from them? AP must be bog-damn rich.


No they're not: http://associatedpress.com/ Look at the bottom of their page.

[pitabread]

I'm no expert on this legal stuff, but to me it looks like his art is different enough from the ref...

I don't think it's different enough at all. The acid test in court will probably be whether a "reasonable person" would consider them to be sufficiently different. But the art is a pretty blatant copy imho.

[Kilowatt]

I'm no expert on this legal stuff, but to me it looks like his art is different enough from the ref...

Some of his work looks a little different from the ref, most does not. I respect him for his presence in the street scene, and as artists we all use images as reference and source material. But at what point does it become too much, especially when you see how much he profits from all of this? Slap a logo on and become rich & famous?

But the art is a pretty blatant copy imho.

A lot of his work is indeed. Some more Fairey examples:

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

This if anything clarifies his process a little better than what the majority of the public might know.

[Kilowatt]

Fairey isn't making money off of it, so it falls under 'fair use'.

Ah man your right... god damn people taking things no one wants, turning them in to art and giving them away for free. Hes a real son of a bitch.

Man do some research. There are two on this page alone:

http://obeygiant.com/store/home.php?cat=9

and I know for a fact he has sold many stickers, prints, and maybe even t-shirts with that image on them. Not to mention everyone else who has profited off of it.

[Uli]

To complicate things even more, I was wondering how the situation would be under German copyright law, which is very different from US law.

[tatiana]

Well, now Fairey has been arrested.

Police in Boston say the artist famous for his "Hope" posters of President Obama has been arrested on outstanding warrants.

Shepard Fairey was in Boston on Friday for his new exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art.

Police Officer James Kenneally says the department had Jan. 24 warrants alleging the Los Angeles artist tagged property with graffiti.

Fairey's Obama image has been sold on thousands of stickers and posters. It is the subject of a copyright dispute with The Associated Press. Fairey argues that his use of the AP photo is protected by "fair use," which allows exceptions to copyright laws.

A California lawyer who has represented Fairey in the copyright case didn't immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the arrest.

More publicity, definitely.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090207_lj_poster.2a7a1a58.html