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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
- bmwracer I'm a Fan of bmwracer 2 fans permalink

After all this time, the AP now decides it's infringement??

Sounds like an AP money grab.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 02/05/2009

Totally.

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

If Obama lost the election, would they even be talking about this?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 02/05/2009
- Anare I'm a Fan of Anare 4 fans permalink

AP is gouging Fairey. Their behavior is tacky.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

what/who is the source photo for the "vote' print?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 02/05/2009

David C. Turnley took the image the VOTE poster was derived from. Here you can see all three original photos.

http://blogs.phillynews.com/inquirer/sceneonroad/2009/01/a_last_word_hopefully_and_upda_1.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 02/05/2009
- mjb5406 I'm a Fan of mjb5406 25 fans permalink
photo

I wonder if Google can be held partially responsible for making the image available.

I also have a question..­. if someone looks at an image (photo, object, whatever) and then makes a drawing of it from memory, does that infringe on copyright? I'm not an IP attorney, but I would think that if a person was prohibited from creating a work of art from recollections, either complete, partial or in combination with other recollections, there would be far more lawsuits like this. I think that the argument can be made that any artistic composition is based, in one way or another, on a person's experiences. A piece of music, for example, may have passages that sound like other music sim0ly because the composer heard another piece in the past and that fragment appealed to them. Infringment?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 02/05/2009
- Xgal08 I'm a Fan of Xgal08 2 fans permalink

He was inspired by an image and created art from that image. I've done this several times.

All art in one way or another is based on other artist's work or images that occur in the world. My art teachers always gave assignments that would have us look at a previous art period or artist. Then, we were to draw in that artist's style or change his/her's piece in some way that reflected our style. I don't see the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 02/05/2009
- blaharumph I'm a Fan of blaharumph 15 fans permalink
photo

...preside­ntial pardon?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 PM on 02/05/2009

To quote Stephen Colbert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBt7cdZnw4w

"Remix is OK!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

Whaddya expect from the MSM???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 02/05/2009
- cloudmaker I'm a Fan of cloudmaker 64 fans permalink
photo

If AP can sue the artist for basing his work on their photograph, why
can't Obama sue as well? After all it is his face. I have a feeling our
copyright laws are just as screwed up as everything else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 02/05/2009
- JanPoore I'm a Fan of JanPoore 115 fans permalink
photo

Did Campbell's Soup Company sue Andy Warhol for painting their soup cans, the design of which is trademarked? Did Marilyn Monroe's estate sue him for his famous Marilyn print that was done from photos of her? It's called artistic license.
Fairery created an original work of art from the AP photo of Obama, but #1. It's been changed enough into a painting and not reproduced as a photo. #2. He didn't create this art to profit financially from the photo. He donated it to the Obama campaign to show his support for Obama. AP should just drop this. Artists working from photos is done all the time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 02/05/2009
- rwt1138 I'm a Fan of rwt1138 12 fans permalink

I forget his name, but a while ago I read about an artist whose entire body of work consists of photographs of other photographer's photographs. I don't think the AP has a leg here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:08 PM on 02/05/2009
- Oilygarch I'm a Fan of Oilygarch 5 fans permalink
photo

Don't worry. You will soon remember his name when he sues you. LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 PM on 02/05/2009
- pkafin I'm a Fan of pkafin 23 fans permalink

The AP cannot copyright Obama's face. There is little else in the picture that is used in the painting. Case closed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 02/05/2009
- mjb5406 I'm a Fan of mjb5406 25 fans permalink
photo

They'll probably claim that the angle of his face and his facial expression is unique.

Newspapers are dropping the AP as a news provider, so they have to get their money from somewhere.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 02/05/2009
photo

it is a fact that the instant a photographer snaps a shot he owns the copyright to it. period. that photog can sell it to newspapers, sell it as fine art all without a release from the subject.

if you steal a photographer's photo and convert it to blak and white or cross process it you've stolen the original. if you do what fairey has done you've done the same thing, you altered the colors and otherwise processed it.

if fairey steals something and gives it away, even to someone you like or a cause you believe in, he has stolen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 02/05/2009
- LauraD I'm a Fan of LauraD 54 fans permalink

My husband is an artist, a graphic artist and a graffitti artist, to be specific. This is a very common method of producing artwork, particularly that which makes a social or political commentary. Although it is in good taste to credit the original artist or photographer when a work is sampled from, when the work is an original piece of art that is simply inspired by a published photo, or when the work falls under the guidelines of fair use, such as a parody work, there is no legal requirement to pay royalties of any kind or even credit the artist/pho­tographer. Take for example movies such as those in the "(fill in the blank) Movie" series, which uses just enough of the original for people to know what they are referring to, but it is clearly a parody of the original work.

Laymen's terms - they do this all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. It is a derivative political commentary piece, and therefore falls under fair use. It's not copyright infringement, because he didn't copy the original work, he created a piece of art based upon another work that is significantly different than the original. I don't know what the AP is thinking. I would think they would be very familiar with these laws and would therefore understand exactly why they are wrong, here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 02/05/2009
- CeeCee I'm a Fan of CeeCee 38 fans permalink

I'm a mixed media collage artist, and you've explained this accurately and clearly. Thank you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 02/05/2009
- LauraD I'm a Fan of LauraD 54 fans permalink

I've done what I can to study up on copyright laws. I don't want to be surprised by a lawsuit, and at the same time, we want to protect my husband's work from infringment, without stepping on the rights of other artists to create derivative works.

I got involved in it when he was putting a TesOne piece on the bottom of his longboard, and I wanted to make sure that crediting him would be enough when he posted the pictures of the finished board. That was the first time he had ever used an existing piece as it was, and other than not disrespecting the other artist, you've got to cover your rump, man!

Anyone involved in a creative field should know this stuff. I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong, or I could have misinterpreted what we have found on the matter, but at least we're trying our best to stay within the confines of the IP laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 02/05/2009
- PWM I'm a Fan of PWM 258 fans permalink
photo

If art is going to be held to copyrights, then can anything be painted without problems?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 02/05/2009
- huffnpuffn I'm a Fan of huffnpuffn 8 fans permalink

This whole appropriating without attributing is not so uncommon in the art world, particularly the modern art world. While I hesitate to make the comparison, what Shepard Fairey did is not so different from what Andy Warhol did with his Flowers pieces of 1964:
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5074082

He was sued. The two parties eventually reached a cash settlement. I expect a similar outcome here.

More on Shepard Fairey and plagiarism is here:
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

And a response:
http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 02/05/2009
- humanoid I'm a Fan of humanoid 15 fans permalink
photo

You beat me to it, huffnpuffn, on citing the art-for-a-change.com article about Fairey's egregious plagiarism.

As an illustrator, I've long had a professional interest in protecting the integrity of copyright. On the other hand, I'm also well aware of the hot water an artist can get into, simply by innocently using someone else's image as reference. And I have grave doubts about whether copyright is even a tenable concept in the digital era. Personally, I'm excited about the new economic model that's evolving in which creatives give their work away for free in order to develop a direct, unmediated relationship with an audience. (See, for instance, the "Thousand True Fans" essay by Kevin Kelly.)

The article you cite, however, makes it abundantly clear that Fairey's "rule-breaking" goes well beyond the fashionable practice of "artistic appropriation" to outright theft. His well-established track record of disrespecting and exploiting the hard work of other artists, his self-aggrandizing careerism, and perhaps most tellingly, his utter lack of original creativity, demonstrate him to be not a heroic rebel-artist but rather a sleazy, contemptible hack.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 02/05/2009
- huffnpuffn I'm a Fan of huffnpuffn 8 fans permalink

What he definitely is is a guy who can spot a trend and a decent self-promoter. His original Obama poster included his OBEY insignia thing inside of the Obama campaign logo.

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/crblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/barack-is-progress.jpg

Gives the poster a whole new meaning I think, and not an especially flattering one for either side. OBEY Obama. It's no longer about electing this guy either. It's about hitching the OBEY cart to the "Hope/Change" horse. For what? To better cash in on this trend.

But look, as anyone with a modicum of Photoshopping skills can tell you, what he does isn't that challenging. Troll Google Images and old books on posters/prints, grab an image you had nothing to do with creating, tweak it just enough, add something vaguely thought provoking, like a flower in a gun barrel or something, then slap on the OBEY logo. Done. Run that puppy. Limited edition of 450.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 02/05/2009
- Daughter I'm a Fan of Daughter 2 fans permalink

However, this MUST READ article holds the opposing position:

http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/

It kinda explains the Shepard Fairey smear camoaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 02/05/2009
- munki I'm a Fan of munki 34 fans permalink
photo

Is this because... PEOPLE /AP is after what?
GREED

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 02/05/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect