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

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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
- rudyinbama I'm a Fan of rudyinbama 24 fans permalink

It does seem Mr. Fairey is a repeat offender and really needs to give his sources a cut.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 02/05/2009

Mark Vallen and Brian Sherwin were about the only people pointing out Shepard Fairey's infringement problems until this story broke. Great to see Vallen get some spotlight for his critique.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 AM on 02/06/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

Should they pay any royalties themselves if they benefited in any anyway from their spotlight?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 PM on 02/07/2009

And look, art lawyers and other legal types are putting their two cents in. This could become a huge legal battle with the value of copyright at the mercy of the judge who rules over the verdict. Copyright was a big issue with artists before the election and now that the election is over I think more artists will start to focus on copyright and how copyright is being attacked. Take a look at what lawyers are saying,
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/art-law-professionals-weigh-in-on.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 AM on 02/06/2009
photo

Fairey is a political street artist and did not "make millions" on the Obama image...unlike people who ripped it off and sold it on ebay. Fairey has spoken at length about his support for Obama and lack of monetary gain from the image. Doesn't seem that AP has a case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

whether he charged for the image may effect the punative reward the photog gets but doesn't change the fact the photog's rights were taken. fairey has personally profited from the publicity and a good lawyer would argue that results in sales of other items. this is all separate from the opportunity that fairey stole from the photographer to use the image exclusively as was his right, copyright.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

No, poor Manny Garcia lost those right when he sold his photograph to big-media AP before he was laid off by them.

Manny, give us a shout-out if you're unemployed. This is Miguel Palacio from KPIK.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 02/05/2009

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MILLIONS. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING LEGITIMATE COPYRIGHT AND THE USAGE PERMISSIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. The artist would have cried infringement if his work was used for profit or exposure for something other than himself so why is so hard for the artist to license, and we are talking a one time fee here, the image to create his work. Being a renegade, or whatever you would like to portray the artist as, is not an excuse for flaunting those rights which even his own works are afforded.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 02/07/2009
- Horus45 I'm a Fan of Horus45 35 fans permalink
photo

"The artist would have cried infringement if his work was used for profit or exposure for something other than himself so why is so hard for the artist to license, and we are talking a one time fee here, the image to create his work."

No, he would not!
It is very obvious you don't know a thing about Sherpard Fairey!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 02/08/2009

I 'm not a copyright lawyer who sees potential income from this case like this. Nor am I an artist. But I do believe that the fair use doctrine is a no brainer here. Fairey made an artistic interpretation of an image that is a part of his world. Comments by intellectual property lawyers reveal this aspect of so-called copyright law to be morally and intellectaully bankrupt. Democracy as our founders framed it, depends on free flow of information and ideas. The AP should be ashamed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

nonsense. appropriating/stealing others work is not the basis of democracy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 02/05/2009

The founders supported the protection of intellectual property and creative rights. The reason why we have copyright laws is so that creative people will continue to creative knowing that they can protect their art, research, or whatever it is they do. Fair use is intended to allow people to educate, commen on, or parody works that are known by the majority of the public. Fairey has failed to do that with the photograph. The fact that the AP and the photograph did not recognize their image in the Obama posters shows just how much Fairey failed at using fair use with the images. No dialogue between the old work and the new work was established. A key point of fair use is that a dialogue must be established. So Fairey is going to lose big on this one and it is about time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 AM on 02/06/2009
- emily00011 I'm a Fan of emily00011 35 fans permalink

What's funny is how many people have ripped off the painting. All sorts of crafters have gone n u ts creating Obama quilts, embroidery, paintings, you name it. I've seen the Hope painting recreated in other media, and yes, some of the people have created them with the intention to sell them, but not all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:43 PM on 02/05/2009
- Sapna I'm a Fan of Sapna 9 fans permalink

I paint myself and painting portraits is my forte. I often use photos taken either by me or by somebody else (book, magazine, etc). Yes, I do my own interpetation of the image, and so what if it is picture made by someone else. I don't understand why AP is getting so uptight about this one. It is quite petty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

So, you paint yourself, huh? Did you bother asking yourself for permission?

BTW, some people are of the belief that if their picture is taken, their soul is robbed and imprisoned in that picture you took. That's why there should never be any pictures whatsoever because we might just offend somebody, or even worse, end up arguing with some soul-less body and you know, that can be quite annoying and turn out to be a very senseless argument.

;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 02/05/2009

If you are an artist as a profession and using other copyrighted source material for reference to create that art, you should be seeking an artist reference license to use that material....taking it from a book is not a legitimate sourcing of the material.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 02/07/2009

Why all the references to Warhol? Is Larry Flint also on your legal and moral compass? So let me get this straight - whatever Warhol did makes it ok for me to do too? And what about all the thousands of artists and designer who DO seek out permission to use someone else work??

So whats next? I know, how about allowing foreign countries to also steal Intellectual Property?

Who really cares about IP anyways?

Please, get a grip - ok?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

Oh, yeah, and let's make sure that the Warhol estate also gets a piece of the pie because of its plausible source of inspiration. Oh, and since it would have been less plausible that it would have ever been a source of inspiration had it not been for the existence of old Marylin Monroe, Campbel Soups and Comic books, those too should get a piece of the action. Wait! What about the guy who invented the printing press or the original artists from those old cave-dwellings? Yeah, yeah, that's it.

Oh, and I'd like to thank my mother and father for having been born. And yes, it all started when I was born at an early age...

;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 02/05/2009
- SFkid I'm a Fan of SFkid 5 fans permalink

By the way Mannie Garcia should get equal credit and compensation suckas!

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

The credit line which Huff Post used, including photographer, AP and artist is the fairest way of crediting the image at this muddled juncture.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 02/07/2009
- SFkid I'm a Fan of SFkid 5 fans permalink

Shep used art created by someone else and made money off of it...what is that called? oh yeah, stealing. Now he's getting worldwide recognition for it, whats that called? F'ed Up. But ya know so did Andy Warhol.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

Andy made me eat more tomato soup; or as one of our recent vice-residents might have corrected me: tomatoe soup. Oh, wait, I really should credit him, except, I really don't recollect his name at the moment. Does that mean that I should not talk about it, or only talk about it when I finally do remember his name?? Maybe I should have self-censored my form of expression.

OK, I admit that omission of expression in this particular case might actually make us all the wiser.

But I also admit I do really like that Obama poster.

p.s.
Oh, don't forget that if you plan to buy a Chevy, that you might have to stop at the Ford dealership on the way home because Henry Ford came up withe Model-T before Chevy entered the arena.

Oh, and if I got just one tenth of any of the revenue I generated for the company I work for by the ideas I generate I would be _filthy_ rich, but no, instead, here I am, living in fear of the next ''right-sizing''.

p.p.s.
Although I put that expression in quotation marks, hell if I know who its original originator was. So, sue me. In fact, it's originator (and I'm sure I'm not alone in my sentiments), its originator can rot in bloody hell for it.

;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 02/05/2009

Andy Warhol used images that people knew. The photograph of Monroe was known all over the United States. The soup can was mmmm, mmmm good. People made the connection between Warho's art and the images he based it on. There was visual dialogue going on which is a crucial part of a fair use claim. Fairey on the other hand failed to make the same type of connection to the point that neither the photograph or the AP noticed that the Obama photograph was used to create the posters. Fairey failed to comment on or parody the photograph because the photograph itself was not widely known. That is why fair use works best with images that are very well know. Someone could make a parody or visual comment on most of Shepard Fairey's art under fair use and it would be legitimate given his status. But we know that when artists do that Fairey sends them cease and desist letters. Look up Baxter Orr. So why should people support Shepard Fairey's claim of fair use when Fairey does not support fair use himself?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 AM on 02/06/2009
photo

way to show your *ss, AP

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 02/05/2009

To merely have the image is not to break the law or infringe upon the copyright. However if you were to sell the derivative work for profit then the artist/copyright holder could come after you for infringement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

Any good lehman's guide to copyright laws books out there that you know of SF? I thought I had a decent grasp on the basic do's and dont's but this one is confusing the h.ell out of me, and given that I work in film and television, I definitely need to be up to date on what is and isn't Kosher when it comes to copyright laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 02/05/2009
- dagnome27 I'm a Fan of dagnome27 8 fans permalink
photo

It's LAYMAN not lehman

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

Oh, I see you used the word Kosher, please stop by your local Temple and pay a royalty for having enriched the Royal Academy of English Language with your utterance.

;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 02/05/2009
- etcetc I'm a Fan of etcetc 5 fans permalink

Google Richard Prince, AP. And then get back to us and tell us how you have no case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

Got a question that I'm hoping someone with a knowledge of copyright laws can help me answer. Let me start by admitting my astounding ignorance when it comes to the art-world. However, I do know what kind of art I like when I see it, and the first time I saw the "Hope" poster, I was blown away.

In fact, I liked it so much that when I put together a 30 second youtube video for the Obama campaign, I ended the spot with a mosaic of the "HOPE" poster. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWiR43JrqPQ

Anyway, I decided to make myself a t-shirt with the image. Long story short, every Obama supporter I ran into wanted to know where they could get one, and I realized I could make a quick profit selling the shirts and posters.

Other than laziness, the reason I decided not to do it was the worry that even though I had turned the Shepard Fairey poster into a mosaic of public domain images, the finished product was still based on his work of art. He had written the song...I just did the remix, and without Fairey's permission, I could conceivably get busted for copyright infringement.

So, my question is, under what circumstances could I have the image without breaking the law?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

**In case you don't know, a mosaic is an image (in this case the "Hope" poster), composed of hundreds of other images that basically serve as the pixels of the main image.
I just realized that the question of legality would be even further complicated if I had used AP photos as part of the source images. I was at least mindful enough of that to use public domain photos from flickr.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 02/05/2009

This is a classic example of Fair Use, the AP has no case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 02/05/2009
- Daughter I'm a Fan of Daughter 2 fans permalink

Sue me!!!

++++++++++#@++++++++++++
+++++++########++++++++++
++++++#####++###+++++++++
+++++##++++++++##++++++++
+++++#++++++++++##+++++++
++++#+++++++++++###++++++
++++#++++++++++++##++++++
+++#+++++++++######++++++
+++#++++##+ ########+++++
+++#+++#+#+++++++++#+++++
+++#++###++++++++++##++++
+++#+++++++++++++++#+++++
++++#++++++++##@++##++++
++++++++++@###++++##++++
+++#+#+++++++++++++#+++++
+++#++++++++####+++#+++++
++++++#++++#--#+++##+++++
++++#+#++++++++++###+++++
+++++#+#+++++++++#####+++
++++++++++++++++########+
++++++++##++++##########+
++++++++++@#######+#####+
++++++####++#####++#####+
++++######++++##++######+
+++#######+++##+++######+
+######### ++#++++######+
+#########+++++++##+++##+
+##########+++#++##+##+#+
+##########++++#+##+++##+
+##########+++#+####+###+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This and other versions available at:

http://www.vgatrader.com/boascii.html

Please feel free to distribute widely!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

LOL

Thank you Daughter!! Sue you I WILL, NOT!

Even though I originally gave you that ASCII art that I found at that web-site! I even wrote "Sue me!!" on top just as you did. Oh, don't forget to pay the inventor of ASCII as well as the inventor of the original printing press, and do the same next time you eat a hash-brown, pay another surcharge again. Wait, isn't Obama brown? Pay again. Pay pay pay pay pay.

LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 PM on 02/05/2009
- bodo I'm a Fan of bodo 7 fans permalink

If that were infringement, then Andy Warhol would have to pay Campbell's Soup for the design of their cans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 02/05/2009

It's called free advertising. Campbell's should have been happy that someone thinks their cans of soup is art.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

...and Marilyn Monroe's estate for the use of hers...

(If you ask me, it's ridiculous.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 02/05/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect