Shepard Fairey Arrested In Boston

BOSTON — A street artist famous for his red, white and blue "Hope" posters of President Obama has been arrested on warrants accusing him of tagging property with graffiti, police said Saturday.

Shepard Fairey was arrested Friday night on his way to the Institute of Contemporary Art for a kickoff event for his first solo exhibition, called "Supply and Demand."

Two warrants were issued for Fairey on Jan. 24 after police determined he'd tagged property in two locations with graffiti based on the Andre the Giant street art campaign from his early career, Officer James Kenneally said. One of the locations was the railroad trestle by the landmark Boston University bridge over the Charles River, police said.

Fairey, 38, of Los Angeles, is scheduled to be arraigned Monday in Brighton District Court, said Jake Wark, a spokesman for the Suffolk District Attorney. Wark said Fairey would also be arraigned on a default warrant related to a separate graffiti case in the Roxbury section of Boston.

Fairey has spent the last two weeks in the Boston area installing the ICA exhibit and creating outdoor art, including a 20-by-50 foot banner on the side of City Hall, according to a statement issued Saturday by the museum.

The museum said Fairey was released a few hours after his arrest. Boston police confirmed Fairey had been released, but did not know exactly when or the amount of his bail.

A man who answered the phone at Fairey's Los Angeles studio, Studio One, declined comment.

"Shepard Fairey was completely unaware that there were any warrants for his arrest. Had he known, he would have resolved all such issues before the opening of his art exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston," his attorney, Jeffrey Wiesner, said in an e-mail.

Fairey has been arrested numerous times for drawing on buildings and other private property without permission.

His Obama image has been sold on hundreds of thousands of stickers and posters, and was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington before Obama's inauguration.

The image is the subject of a copyright dispute with The Associated Press. Fairey argues his use of the AP photo is protected by "fair use," which allows exceptions to copyright laws 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.

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

Comments

[the steamer]

This is the city that flipped out over the Aquateen Hunger Force promo, right? No wonder Manny Ramirez didn't want to live there anymore.

[XCITIZEN]

I vote we outlaw posturing in photographs with one's arms tighly crossed over one's chest area. It's too done. Very tired. Please stop. That's all I have to say. I mean, I care, but it's time to hit the sack.

[publicmenace]

I vote we outlaw posturing in posts by people who would put ennui before substance.

[XCITIZEN]

LOL. Yawwwwnnnnnnnn. ZZZZzzzzzzzzz. Wha? Did you say somethin...? WTF is 'Ennui'? LOL.......

[lunarmagpie]

feh... i smell a lot of sour grapes here. i'm sure all the complainers would love to be in the same position as shepard fairey, with all the attention he's gotten since the election.

england has banksy, we've got shepard -- we need people who aren't afraid to break the rules, just to make life a bit more entertaining. he's not hurting anybody.

all the people who are whining about him stealing the art of others aren't stopping to think how much attention he's bringing to them as well...

i'm behind you, shepard... Illegitimi non carborundum.

[innerninja]

it's been a rough week for Fairey,
and a bad week for Phelps too.
Here's how we can help Michael at least:
http://inner-ninja.blogspot.com/2009/02/michael-phelps-marijuana-t-shirt.html

[jan4insight]

Found this on YouTube. Makes Fairey's copyright "trangression" look like milk & cookies ~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-451XMsuY

[XCITIZEN]

Did you have to say 'milk and cookies?' I'm trying to be low carb...

[publicmenace]

Makes Fairey's copyright "transgression" look cheesy. Is that better?

[DrDemon]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !

[Mari X]

I have seen the images Shepard Fairey has posted in Boston, recently, and must say they brighten the dingy old city rather well. He's been here for weeks. As a fellow artist:, I'm proud to say "WELCOME to BOSTON, Dude!"
Mr. Fairey's big show at the Institute of Contemporary Art has been a splash feature in every remaining newspaper around the metropolis the whole time he's been here. Hell, headlines shouted about Mr. Fairey hob-nobbing with Mayor Tom Menino- on the steps of Boston City Hall- just the other day. I guess he was hard for the Boston Police to find, or something, all during his recent criminal public art-spree.

Duh. Baffled 'em all by hiding in plain sight for two whole weeks. Hey, he's not only the best FREE artist in the world, he's also a magician, like Harry Houdini, slippin' and slidin' around the laws of the obvious. The posters look great. Thanks, Shepard Fairy!

[loviesmithsux54]

this guy draws...come on seriously

[stateMachine]

so the courts, and many of those commenting, no longer make a distinction between allusion/reference and plagiarism? I mean, I checked the below:

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

The irony- Fairey's whole career is a commentary on fascist and socialist art. Hence the obey. Somehow, Warhol got away with it.

[Mort]

Warhol did it on canvas and film. Fairey does it on other's private property. Big difference.

[Cinnamonape]

Which is irrelevant to the issue of copyright infringement. Legally there are a constellation of points needed to establish that it wasn't "fair use".
1) Impact on the commercial value of the original. The value of that fell immediately after the news event. Fairey's work has actually exponentially increased sales of that image...not diminished it's value.
2) Did the derivative work substantially profit the artist. Fairey channeled all proceeds other than production costs back into the Obama campaign. Of course, the AP could sue the Obama campaign for benefitting from a picture of Obama (which apparently AP claims Obama's image should belong to them).
3) Was the image taken from an open, public newsworthy event (vs. a posed portrait, taken at a private sitting). Annie Leibowitz's are not news photos, posed with her own special "signature". Even "nature photographs" require large efforts by the photographer to access the area, seek out the subject, etc. It's doubtful that such efforts were made to "capture" this subject.

4) Was substantial artistic change made that the image was distinctive from the original so that it would not diminish the value of the original. Would people who bought Fairey's manipulation buy T-Shirt/poster of AP's photo INSTEAD. Did Fairey manipulate the image by contrast/coloration that it was not recognizeable as to source? The fact that AP itself was unaware that it was their photograph that was the source, but had to be told, is significant on this point.

[solopico]

What's really great about this is that USA Network (owned by NBC) has created something called the "Character Approved Awards" which allow people to "Meet the Innovators Shaping American Culture."

This guy is the first "finalist" shown on their commercial, which of course is perfectly fitting for the Obama / Global Warming Green Week NBC.

Of course, let's not forget that this past Friday, it was announced that Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric (parent company of NBC Networks) is going to be part of Obama's "Economic Recovery Advisory Board." Never mind that GE has lost 72% of it's share value and more than 50% of its trading volume since Immelt took over in '01 - they're on board with Obama in all respects - Green Week, MSNBC is now essentially State News for the Obama team, and even Brian Williams and NBC are being tainted by the ideology of their ownership.

Reap what you sow... this will come back to haunt all involved...

[publicmenace]

And yet you didn't seem to mind when Fixed Noise spent eight years shaking pom-poms for Bush.

[WmC]

Right. Put graffitists in prison, but let war criminals roam free.

[ChiProgressive]

What a crook, he deserves to be in jail.

[publanski]

Why? So the state can support him? The appropriate punishment for vandalism is making the vandal clean it up.

[tmaleone]

its world famous art you get to view for free...you should be thanking him really.

[Mort]

I've had it up to here with these homophobic cops who think they can go around and arrest any Fairey they want. It's got to stop!!! What? What? Oh..... nevermind!

[flamflurm]

hilarious!

[Mort]

(giggle) Thanks!

[huffposeur]

if he was tagging public property with his andre the giant OBEY image he deserves to be thrown in jail and when he's done he should be made to clean up graffiti around the city. imagine him getting the kind of crediblity and exposure the ICA in boston is affording him and he still acts like a petulant teen and goes out and vandalizes public property. nice.

[JoDeeVa]

It is not clear to me whether it was actually Shepherd Fairey, who painted the images or other "street-artists". Regardless, more power to him/ them! Everyone was more than happy and allowed to post his "Obama/Hope" political posters/ stickers all over PUBLIC SPACES, all over the U.S...WTF is the difference, when it is art/ social commentary, instead of electioneering? Why is such a distinction drawn?..Merely, acceptance of the one over the other as perceived "normal behavior!"

As far as "tagging public property"?...There is a difference between "tagging graffiti" and "street-art". And, uh, it is PUBLIC PROPERTY. We, the people, own it as much as those who would sell it and other PUBLIC spaces to the highest corporate bidder! And, this "Jo-Q PUBLIC CITIZEN would rather see Shepherd Fairey's and other street-artist's images on that PUBLIC PROPERTY than ads from corporate shills, selling their bill of goods!

That "..acts like a petulant teen..." who "..vandalizes public property"...? I think not:
"It’s all about control of the public space. If the opponents of street art are the only ones who speak out then they will be the only ones who are listened to. We need to fight fire with fire and express ourselves intelligently. If we don’t come across as a bunch of vandals we may find that the silent majority is actually supportive of public artistic expression."/ Shepherd Fairey

[donky]

doesn't

anybody have a say

in who copyrights their image

in a normal world you would own

your own image

heh...

[The Ogre]

There are a lot of very good reasons why we don't own our "own images." Copyright law actually makes sense. Common sense can supply numerous reasons why the person who creates an image (of another person) owns that image.

Here's the most basic reasoning...I didn't create my face. But if a person takes a picture of my face, that other person created the picture. I didn't create the picture, and I might have had nothing to do with its creation. So, why would I own the picture? Because it's my face? That doesn't make any sense. If someone takes a picture of my car, should I own that picture, too? I own my face, and I own my car, but I don't own the pictures that people take of them.

How could we even have a news media if people owned the images that other people made of them? How could we have satirical art? Documentaries? If I took a picture of my wife posing in front of a building, and a stranger is in the background, would they own part of the picture too?

It would never end.