AP Accuses Obama Artist Shepard Fairey Of Copyright Infringement

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - AP Accuses Obama Artist Shepard Fairey Of Copyright Infringement stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

HILLEL ITALIE | 02/ 4/09 10:39 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
A poster of President Barack Obama, right, by artist Shepard Fairey is shown for comparison with this April 27, 2006 file photo of then-Sen. Barack Obama by Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia at the National Press Club in Washington. Fairey has acknowledged, the poster is based on the AP photograph. (AP Photo/Mannie Garcia/ Shepard Fairey)

NEW YORK — 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 says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"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. "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. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."

Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.

Legal experts offered differing views on the Obama image.

Story continues below
advertisement

Jane Ginsburg, a Columbia University law professor who specializes in copyright cases, questioned whether Fairey has a valid fair-use claim and says that he should have at least credited the AP.

"What makes me uneasy is that it kind of suggests that anybody's photograph is fair game, even if it uses the entire image, and it remains recognizable, and it's not just used in a collage," Ginsburg said. "I think that's pretty radical."

Robin Gross, an intellectual property attorney who heads IP Justice, an international civil liberties organization, believes that Fairey had the right to use the photo, saying that he intended it for a political cause, not commercial use.

"Fairey's purpose of the use for the photo was political or civic, and this will certainly count in favor of the poster being a fair use," said Gross, based in San Francisco. "Nor will the poster diminish the value of the photo, if anything, it has increased the original photo's value beyond measure, another factor counting heavily in favor of fair use."

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.

As it caught on, supporters began downloading the image and distributing it at campaign events, while blogs and other Internet sites picked it up. Fairey has said that he did not receive any of the money raised.

A former Obama campaign official said they were well aware of the image based on the picture taken by Garcia, a temporary hire no longer with the AP, but never licensed it or used it officially. The Obama official asked not to be identified because no one was authorized anymore to speak on behalf of the campaign.

The image's fame did not end with the election.

It 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.

"The continued use of the poster, regardless of whether it is for galleries or other distribution, is part of the discussion AP is having with Mr. Fairey's representative," Colford said.

A New York Times book on the election, just published by Penguin Group (USA), includes the image. A Vermont-based publisher, Chelsea Green, also used it _ credited solely to Fairey_ as the cover for Robert Kuttner's "Obama's Challenge," an economic manifesto released in September. Chelsea Green President Margo Baldwin said that Fairey did not ask for money, only that the publisher make a donation to the National Endowment for the Arts.

"It's a wonderful piece of art, but I wish he had been more careful about the licensing of it," said Baldwin, who added that Chelsea Green gave $2,500 to the NEA.

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.

Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate.

"Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."

At first, Obama's team just encouraged him to make an image, Fairey has said. But soon after he created it, a worker involved in the campaign asked if Fairey could make an image from a photo to which the campaign had rights.

"I donated an image to them, which they used. It was the one that said "Change" underneath it. And then later on I did another one that said "Vote" underneath it, that had Obama smiling," he said in a December 2008 interview with an underground photography Web site.

___

Associated Press writer Philip Elliott in Washington contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — 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 Warhole...
NEW YORK — 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 Warhole...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
532
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
- Lefty08 I'm a Fan of Lefty08 8 fans permalink

This is all nonsense. The HOPE poster/art is something totally different than the reference photo(s) he used to create it...which, by the way, are innocuous at best. Artists work in this manner every day. They take existing imagery and change it into something else. I suppose one could argue that it is a derivative work, but everything created in the world is derivative. There are many existing photos taken of famous folk by different photographers that look almost exactly the same. The AP photo in this instance looks like it was ripped off from another photo taken by a different photographer from Reuters.

The poster is sensational and now everyone wants a piece of it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 02/26/2009

Shepard Fairey is a hypocrite. He only supports fair use when he is the one claiming it. He did not agree with Baxter Orr's claim of fair use so why should anyone respect his claim now? Here is an article that goes into detail about it. http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 PM on 02/10/2009
photo

Fairey ought to be indicted for crimes against art, as well as for "lese majeste" (look it up and figure it out).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 02/09/2009

This is another example of how flawed our current intellectual rights laws are. Most people agree with the fair use claim by Shepard. But the nagging issue is that he only seemed to acknowledge the original photographer when confronted about it. Plagiarism and Illegal Copying are conflated in the current law. I can buy a painting outright and then sell it claiming authorship without legal penalty, regardless of the damage to the reputation of the original author. But ironically there is a law that punishes slander.

This is only one of the problems caused by our our ancestral and corporation favoring copyright law. Along with the problems of orphan and ghost works. www.questioncopyright.com opened my eyes to how copyright law has to be reformed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 AM on 02/09/2009
photo

SO WHAT ABOUT ANDRE THE GIANT?
SHEPHERDS ARTWORK HAS BEEN BASED ON HIS IMAGE FROM ITS INCEPTION.
SHOULD HE, IN TURN, ASK FOR COMPENSATION?
IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING BOUT THE ARTIST AND HIS WORK, HE USES IMAGES FROM POP CULTURE TO PROVOKE THOUGHT.
I HOPE THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO MAYBE PAY THE PHOTOGRAPHER FOR THE ORIGINAL
PICTURE BUT CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE BODY OF ART THATS BEN CREATED ...THAT BELONGS TO THE ARTIST ALONE

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 02/08/2009
- rmc53x I'm a Fan of rmc53x 2 fans permalink
photo

"Provoke thought"? are you saying that Fairey's work is provocative?

his "message" is so milquetoast. An example: his idea of challenging America's perception of the Israeli/Palestine issue is to produce a portrait of a Arab woman in a hijab. Wow, what a radical “statement” that is. He expects the viewer to fill in all the blanks.

why go to all that effort and not hit hard?

“Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.” --Bertolt Brecht

Shepard Fairey deserves to be challenged, especially by artists; he's a sacred cow worshipped in the Popular Culture.

by the way, Fairey got hit with a cease and desist order for using Andre the Giant's image.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 02/18/2009

Fairey is listed as one of USA Network's Character Approved Award winners. So is it "Character Approved" or "Criminal Approved". Considering that Fairey's famous 'Hope' picture is a copyright infringement, what sort of values is USA Network honoring?
Now he has been arrested and charged with tagging property with graffiti. Is he what USA Network is trying to tell others to aspire to be? In his own video piece, he says that it is what he can get away with.
Makes me think the "Character Approved" is not something I would want anyone to be. Clearly he has no respect or concern for others or their property. Not virtues I would consider worthy of being honored. Shame on you USA Networks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 02/08/2009

This is really pretty simple and there is no "bigger" issue here. Regardless of who is the copyright holder of the the image used by the artist, that copyright holder is due a license fee for usage of the image. An artist MUST pay an artist reference license fee, a one time fee, to use the image. This is done everyday and AP and other stock photo agencies and photographers' agents collect these license fees regularly. The artist was obligated to contact the copyright holder and license the work for artist reference. I will give you an example which, when I was an agent/rep for photographers was this basic norm. The musician/artist, Ron Wood, would contact my agency regularly to purchase an artist reference license for images which he would use as the basis of his artwork. A fee per image was negotiated and occasionally the photographers were provided copies of the artwork if it was mass produced. A simple process which does not need to be avoided by any artist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 02/07/2009

For those simple-minded enough to draw a black and white conclusion that copying to any degree is plagiarism, Fairey is just that. For those of us capable of applying a more dynamic measure to Fairey's work, it is a brilliant message that uses appropriated images as scenes a fair.

Fairey's work has translated an obscure photograph into a profound message that should not be stifled by Copyright law. How many other artists who, unlike Fairey, lack any power or influence will be silenced by Copyright law rewritten by major media companies to protect their monopoly positions?

Copyright is intended to encourage creativity for the benefit of society. It is not intended to stifle competition to further entrench media monopolies. Its purpose has been bastardized and exploited to oppress the very society that has chartered its existence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 02/07/2009
- JoDeeVa I'm a Fan of JoDeeVa 18 fans permalink
photo

As a Shepherd Fairy fan from his early "street bo m bing" days..all of the images are intended to provoke thought, with the original image altered, relevant to current or conflicting issues. His Obama interpretation of the original photo is altered in color, design, purpose and impact, therefore does not support plagiarism charges of the original photo. Robbie Canal does the same with his art..ie,
"Men with No Lips"- altered photos of Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Donald Regan, James Baker
"Women with Lips"- altered photos of Nancy Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joan Rivers

Interesting article on Fairey, with some great altered images of his altered image-check out the story's links, as well. The "Jesus/ Hope" appears to be an altered "Marco Palmezzano"(?) painting..15th century-ish. The original is owned by/ hangs in the Vatican..do they own copyright? I once did a series of postcards, based on pictures I had taken of art/ sculpture in the Smithsonian..as long as it was clear they were altered images of my photos..I was advised they were OK. And, what of all the other photo images..copyright infringement of those altered photos by the artists, as well as of Shepherd Fairey's altered Obama image-style of AP/ Manny Garcia's photo?
http://www.posterpage.ch/exhib/ex216oba/ex216oba.htm

Making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright...
http://creativecommons.org/videos/a-shared-culture

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 02/06/2009

Go to H*LL AP! You can't even get a story right. Why don't you do that and sue the poor creative person later. Geez!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

It seems pretty clear the fair use analysis comes out in Fairey's favor. But fair use isn't the only argument Fairey has. Photographs are not subject to copyright in quite the same way as, say, paintings. Photographs are copyrightable as "visible expressions of ideas in the mind." Burrow-Giles v. Sarony. Photos can be copyrighted because elaborate setup, lighting, and choice of expression, clothing and background are all visible in the finished product. Id. In other words, photos are copyrightable insofar as artistic considerations are visible in the finished product. In contrast, the product of a "mechanical process" cannot be copyrighted. Id., ATC Distrib. If the photographer here was just standing in a crowd, held up the camera and got a clear shot, it's hard to argue that anything more than a "mechanical process" just occurred. Is the mere fact that Obama is in the picture enough to lend it the "minimal degree of creativity" required for copyright? Feist. If not, the photo never was copyrighted to begin with, and Fairey is in the clear.

In my view, Fairey has a winning case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

nonsense, that was a skilled photographer at work and the image was protected by copyright the instant he pressed the shutter button.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 02/06/2009

Yes a photograph taken by a published photographer, a professional photographer, is copyrighted not for its artistic content but because it is the owned product of that photographer, or in this case the property of the company the image was photographed for. Of course the mechanics of taking the picture has nothing to do with it...it is the end product of that photographer, however it was created, that is the copyrighted work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 PM on 02/07/2009

Mark – you are right to question whether anything creative was produced. Echorich is wrong, being a professional has irrelevant; the work has to be original and creative to receive copyright protection.

I believe the discussion of fair use is a secondary consideration and a broader issue is whether the photo is actually protectable by copyright.

First, Fairey may make the argument that the photographer did not create anything original, so the photograph as a whole is not copyrightable. The photographer had no discretion with poses, lighting, staging, etc. Also numerous photos taken by different people at the event are substantially similar; thus, none of them may be considered original and creative.

Second, Fairey may argue that Obama and his expression are unprotectable elements of the photograph. Generally, artists have no copyright in the reality of their subject matter or appearance of objects as they occur in nature. The photographer may have no rights to the subject of the photograph in this situation, where the photographer had no control or influence over the subject (like timing, background, lighting, staging, expressions, posing, etc.)

Also, to support the AP’s claims to copyright protection, a court would have to find that the AP had rights to a copyright on Obama’s face and expression, as that is the only thing even remotely similar (or copied) from whichever photo is at issue.

I believe the element of Obama in the picture is not a protectable element of copyright law. Thus, Fairey should win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 02/10/2009
photo

4) Market Impact. The question in the market impact analysis is whether the new image could "substitute" for the old one, that is, satisfy demand for the old work. Acuff-Rose. That seems unlikely here. A magazine or newspaper that wanted an actual picture of Obama to display alongside an article would not accept a blurry and creatively recolored image with a word underneath. Likewise, a group that wanted an emblem for the Obama campaign would not settle for a relatively ordinary photograph of Obama's face. The markets involved are quite different. Just as a thumbnail of an image does not satisfy demand for the image itself, Perfect10 v. Amazon, Kelly v. Arriba, Fairey's image does not satisfy demand for an ordinary photo. The market impact factor weighs for Fairey.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

you have no idea what the market might have done had not the copyright been infringed or if the obama campaign had endorsed and promoted the original photo. pure speculation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

2) Nature of Use. The question here is whether the original photo, and specifically the portion of it Fairey appropriated, is part of the protected "core" of copyright. Acuff-Rose. The "core" of copyright is what's highly creative, like books and music. Far from the core are things like instruction manuals and terms of use. Photographs fall somewhere in between, depending how much creativity is embodied in a given photograph. The original photograph of Obama is not particularly unusual or special. He has a stern but hopeful look on his face that is, for him, quite common. The lighting is ordinary. There is nothing visible in the picture to suggest artistry. The photograph was fairly far from the protected core of copyright, so this factor probably weighs for Fairey.

3) Amount of Use. Fairey began with the entire original photo, versus for instance a corner of it. However, entirely re-colored the photo. He also blurred many of the hard lines of the original. How much of the original is left? Essentially, a very low-resolution and colorless image of Obama. This is significant, but only enough to weigh lightly against fair use.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

the skill of the photographer is evident. he caught a defining moment, so defining of the man it was used without permission. furthermore the dof, angle, focal length all contribute to the impact of the photo. that shows a skilled photographer.

any fair minded person seeing the photo immediately knows it is the source and very little real creativity went into fairey rehashing his shtick on it. fairey added nothing that changes adds or subtracts from the message the original photo conveys, nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 02/06/2009
photo

The fair use analysis seems promising for Fairey. I attempted to do the analysis myself, based on the the 17 USC 107 factors and case law.

1) Purpose of use. This use was for profit, which works against fair use. 17 USC 107. However, it's at least a little transformative: the coloration has been entirely redone. Being transformative causes a for-profit purpose and the other three factors to weigh less heavily. Acuff-Rose. This looks like Blanch v. Koons, where a painting of women wearing sandals was based on a similar photo, and was found to be sufficiently transformative to be fair use. Public benefit can also tip the purpose factor in favor of fair use. Sony v. Univ. City Studios. Arguably, there's a great deal of public benefit from sincere political commentary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 02/06/2009

You are missing the point that the copyright holder had the right to a reference license fee to use the image as reference for the final product of the artist. the manipulation or reference has little to do with the basic tennant of asking permission to use someone elses copyrighted material for the basis of their own.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 02/07/2009
- Horus45 I'm a Fan of Horus45 32 fans permalink
photo

You conservatives really NEED a life!

All you ever do is Nit Pick like a bunch of closet Queens!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 AM on 02/06/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect