Shepard Fairey Admits Faking Evidence In AP Case

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Shepard Fairey Admits Faking Evidence In AP Case stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

HILLEL ITALIE and JOE MANDAK | 10/17/09 10:28 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

PITTSBURGH — Artist Shepard Fairey, who recently admitted concealing a key mistake in a lawsuit over his use of an Associated Press photo in his famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster, said Saturday that the error should not be viewed as "premeditated and sinister."

Fairey was at the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh on Saturday night for the opening of an exhibit of his works – including the 4-foot-by-8-foot Obama poster. He drew a chuckle from the crowd during a question and answer session when he said, "I am learning from my mistakes, if everybody's been keeping up with the news."

On Friday night, Fairey's attorneys – led by Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University – said they intend to withdraw from the case and said the artist had misled them by fabricating information and destroying other material.

Fairey admitted that he didn't use The Associated Press' photo of Obama seated next to actor George Clooney he originally said his work was based on – which he claimed would have been covered under "fair use," the legal claim that copyrighted work can be used without having to pay for it.

Instead he used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source – a solo picture of the future president seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption "HOPE." Fairey said that he tried to cover up his error by submitting false images and deleting others.

The distinction is critical because fair use can sometimes be determined by how much of an original image or work was altered in the creation of a new work. If Fairey didn't need to significantly alter the image he used – in this case the solo shot of Obama – then his claim could have been undermined. Fair use cases also may consider the market value of the copyrighted material and the intended use of the newly created work.

Laurence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer who represented Napster in a copyright fight with the rock band Metallica, said Saturday that Fairey's case was in trouble.

"This was a brain-dead move by Mr. Fairey, and it could be the turning point. His lawyers will still be able to argue that he made a 'fair use' under copyright law, but it's a whole lot less likely that the court or jury will think that what he did was actually 'fair' if he has lied and tried to mislead the entire world about what use he made," Pulgram said.

Story continues below
advertisement

Fairey said Saturday that it was wrong to portray the error in his initial claim "as if it was very, very premeditated and sinister."

He said the "HOPE" poster was "a piece of grassroots activism done exactly the same way as my other posters."

Fairey described his craft as manipulating existing images and said barring such work is like "saying you can't use those words anymore, they've already been used. How would we talk to each other?"

Srinandan R. Kasi, AP vice president and general counsel, said Fairey's admission struck "at the heart" of Fairey's defense that he was protected by fair use.

"Shepard Fairey has now been forced to admit that he sued the AP under false pretenses by lying about which AP photograph he used," Kasi said. "Mr. Fairey has also now admitted to the AP that he fabricated and attempted to destroy other evidence in an effort to bolster his fair use case and cover up his previous lies and omissions."

Kasi said the AP would continue to pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP's copyright. It was not immediately clear from the statements issued and court filings if Fairey would continue with his case, but a person close to Fairey said that the artist would. The person was not authorized to discuss the case and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Falzone said in a statement that the legal team's decision to withdraw had nothing to do with the "underlying merits" of Fairey's case.

"We believe as strongly as ever in the fair use and free expression issues at the center of this case, and believe Shepard will prevail on those issues," Falzone said. "We hope this unfortunate situation does not obscure those issues."

Fairey, 39, had claimed he based his "HOPE" drawing on a photo of then-Sen. Obama seated next to Clooney. The photo was taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia, on assignment for the AP, at the National Press Club in Washington.

Fairey now says he started with a solo photograph of Obama taken at the same event, by the same photographer. The AP has long maintained that Fairey used the solo shot for the poster.

Fairey sued the not-for-profit news cooperative in February, arguing that he didn't violate copyright law because he dramatically changed the image. The AP countersued in March, saying the uncredited, uncompensated use of an AP photo violated copyright laws and signaled a threat to journalism.

Fairey, a Los Angeles-based street artist with a long, often proud history of breaking rules, said in a statement Friday that he was wrong about which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error.

"In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images," said Fairey. "I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone."

He said he was taking steps to correct the information and regretted that he didn't come forward sooner.

In addition to indicating they plan to withdraw from the case, attorneys for Fairey filed papers Friday in federal court in Manhattan stating that he misled them. They also amended the original court documents, reflecting that Fairey used a different picture.

"Mr. Fairey was apparently mistaken about the photograph he used when his original complaint for declaratory relief was filed on February 9, 2009," the papers say. "After the original complaint was filed, Mr. Fairey realized his mistake. Instead of acknowledging that mistake, Mr. Fairey attempted to delete the electronic files he had used in creating the illustration at issue. He also created, and delivered to his counsel for production, new documents to make it appear as though he had used the Clooney photograph as his reference."

Fairey said in his statement Friday that the real issue was "the right to fair use" so artists can create freely.

"Regardless of which of the two images was used," he said, "the fair use issue should be the same."

The dispute between Fairey and the AP has led to a strong debate between artists and free speech advocates defending Fairey and photographers and journalism organizations citing the need for copyright protection.

The "HOPE" image has appeared on countless posters, stickers and buttons. It has appeared in several books and in numerous museums, including a mixed-media stenciled collage version added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.

Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed especially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist. It is unclear how much, in total, Fairey may have earned from the design, though he has often said he did not personally profit from it.

Fairey has said that he first designed the image in early 2008, after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork.

The AP plans to donate any proceeds received for past use of the photo to the AP Emergency Relief Fund, which assists staffers and their families around the world who are victims of natural disasters and conflicts.

___

AP National Writer Hillel Italie reported from New York.

PITTSBURGH — Artist Shepard Fairey, who recently admitted concealing a key mistake in a lawsuit over his use of an Associated Press photo in his famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster, said Saturday ...
PITTSBURGH — Artist Shepard Fairey, who recently admitted concealing a key mistake in a lawsuit over his use of an Associated Press photo in his famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster, said Saturday ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
550
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

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 » (9 pages total)
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

I can't tell if this guy has the biggest brassiest ones EVER, or if he's simply a mental defective.
Because I can only shake my head at the sheer brazen cluelessness of THIS logical gem:
"Fairey... said barring such work is like 'saying you can't use those words anymore, they've already been used. How would we talk to each other?'"

Um. Shep.
As you should have learned way back in middle school, you CAN'T use "those words"!
I mean, you can, but you'll definitely need to cite the quote. Because "those words," arranged in "that order," are SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. And taking credit where it is not due is generally considered to be scummy behaviour. Even when there's no money involved. Even among 10-year-olds.* And even WITH a citation, you still can't slap "those words" on a bunch of t-shirts and sell them UNLESS YOU GET PERMISSION!

Yeesh. Why doesn't he just confine himself to Creative-C­ommons-lic­ensed stuff??
Not enough of a thrill, or what?

___
* Seriously. As I recall, Article 8, Section 17b of the Playground Rules state that you can't so much as tell a joke without saying who you heard it from. Or at LEAST admitting that it wasn't original to you. Why? Because plagiarism (credit-taking) is not just some classroom/newsroom technicality; it's a visceral-disgust, you're-a-bad-person thing. There. I said it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 10/20/2009
photo

and thanks for saying it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 AM on 10/22/2009
- SFkid I'm a Fan of SFkid 3 fans permalink

Shep's idea of OBEY was also stolen from John Carpenter's movie, "They Live", see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8drfZwnXQ

...you don't have to be original to be a star.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 10/19/2009
- SFkid I'm a Fan of SFkid 3 fans permalink

I digress, not "stolen", inspired, heh.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 10/19/2009
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

No, no-- it's "homage"!
Riiiight.

And at about this juncture, I feel compelled to point out (not for the first time in this thread, I'm sure) that the Obey Giant logo ITSELF is the product of Faireytheft! That face is (or rather, was) Andre the Giant-- it's now barely recognizable as such only because the threat of a lawsuit finally got Fairey to stop illegally using Andre's name and image in the mid-90s. I find it amusing and apropos that the very logo he identifies himself with sums up the nature of his career so well!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 10/20/2009
- noamjunior I'm a Fan of noamjunior 85 fans permalink

AP is totally losing any credibility as a news organization with this.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 10/19/2009
- mark12345 I'm a Fan of mark12345 7 fans permalink
photo

It was placed in the public domain.By AP but then rendered by an artist as one the most powerful images in the world.

AP must not win !

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 10/18/2009
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

Seriously? Did you even read the article?
Let me guess: you bought the Hope poster/sti­cker/t-shi­rt/whateve­r, and/or have emphatically defended Fairey/Obey Giant, and now you don't want to have been had?

Listen.
First of all, NEITHER photo is in the "public domain." They are BOTH copyrighted. Second, the legal issue here is "fair use," which BY DEFINITION applies to copyrighted (ie: non-public) works. The ownership of these photos is not what is in question; AP holds the copyrights, period. Fairey admits that he did not get permission to use either photo. Which is perfectly legal-- IF it's deemed to be "fair use," which is hardly straightforward (see here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html).

In this case, the primary question is: how much did Fairey alter the work?
That is, how different is the finished poster from the copyrighted photo it was based on? The more he altered it, the stronger his case is. So clearly, they need to compare the poster to the original photo. BUT HE LIED ABOUT WHICH PHOTO HE USED. The only conceivable reason for him to lie is to obscure the extent to which he altered (or more to the point: did NOT alter) the original photo. Get it?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 10/20/2009
photo

Fairey has a disappointing track record:

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 10/18/2009
- J Q I'm a Fan of J Q 5 fans permalink
photo

Sigh. Please read the actual copyright law before assuming that you know what it is:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

If I lifted a copy of the HOPE poster from the web, brought it into photoshop, and added "that I don't get sued," could I be sued by AP or Fairey? Let's say I used it to make a slightly clever t-shirt or something.

At most the photographer deserves some credit, but not financial reparations.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

then james, you don't deserve to be paid for the work you do. i challenge you to give back the money your employer has been paying you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 10/18/2009
- noamjunior I'm a Fan of noamjunior 85 fans permalink

that is a BS argument

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 10/19/2009
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

I'm pretty sure the photographer already GOT financial compensation-- when s/he sold the photo to the Associated Press. Now AP holds the copyright.

Honestly, how hard is this?

As for your "HOPE (I don't get sued)" t-shirt idea, I have to say, it made me laugh. But I don't think you could sell it. Or should. I hear you're an artist. So draw it up as a political cartoon instead-- that would constitute a fair use (ie: editorial)!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 10/21/2009
photo

Thanks for recognizing that I was asking a legitimate question and helping (all of us ) out with some facts. Some of the people here don't even understand what issues surround this question, or that there is a gray area. I still think both sides have a point, and personally I would never pick a fight with a professional photographer, esp if I was a famous artist living in SF with lots of connections.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 10/22/2009
- foxisms I'm a Fan of foxisms 80 fans permalink
photo

What's the earth stopping issue here with this guy using a copy of an AP picture?
..[Rhetorical question]
Because there is no earth stopping issue!
The AP wasn't marketing the picture and the guy wasn't using the picture.
He was using a self altered copy of the picture.
Is it even possible to copyright copies of a picture you took?
Shouldn't whoever is in a picture actually be the legal copyright holder by default?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 10/18/2009
- J Q I'm a Fan of J Q 5 fans permalink
photo

So, let's say you have a car that you are not using. If I sit in it and drive it away, then I'm the default owner. Right?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 10/18/2009

Are you comparing apples and apples or have you thrown in an orange or two?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 PM on 10/18/2009
- foxisms I'm a Fan of foxisms 80 fans permalink
photo

Your analogy is out of phase with the question I asked

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 AM on 10/19/2009
photo

Shepard Fairey admitted to using the AP photo as a starting point for his work, I fail to see how he could have destroyed evidence or tried to conceal anything. YOu can tell by looking at the work that he did use the photo in question, but also that his own artistic style has taken it to another place. This particular photo of Obama is generic, and not particularly artistic or unique. If you are going to do a work of art based on someone's face, you either have to get them to sit down for you or you have to use a photo. AP is making a mountain out of a molehill. For the photographer to act like his photo is somehow special or different from the other thousands of photos of Obama's face is ridiculous.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

haha, if he were an artist he'd create the "generic" pose with a pencil and paper and not be ripping off the photographer that captured a photo he coveted.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

Well it sees to me like he was looking for the most generic photo he could find.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 10/18/2009
- provgrays I'm a Fan of provgrays 29 fans permalink

The guy is a tagger thug who tried to go legit by stealing the work of others,
Next.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

He was already legit. If you can't use a newspaper photo of a person's face as a starting point for a work of art, then I fail to see what appropriation could ever be possible. The photographer didn't invent Obama's face.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 10/18/2009
- provgrays I'm a Fan of provgrays 29 fans permalink

Denton,

He wasn't legit according to a court of law. Can you hear yourself?

"The photographer didn't invent Obama's face."

Let me guess...
You're under 25 years old and you steal all of your music on line, right?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 10/21/2009
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there.
LMGTFY...

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

That was easy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 10/21/2009
photo

The "fair use" doctrine is tortured logic at best; it confuses many artists and doesn't protect the innovators so much as it enables predatory corporations. And how ironic that Mr. Fairey spoke at the Andy Warhol Museum -- Warhol couldn't have created many of his famous paintings under this "fair use" doctrine. Campbell's soup is copywrited, so are the estates of Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jackie Kennedy, and then there's Campbell's soup.

Having dumbed down society, and having assaulted imagination, society now places a premium on ideas. Sad, pathetic.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

he could have created them. what is so hard to understand about securing permission to use someone else's creative work or property?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 10/18/2009

Oh, you mean like John McCain's campaign forgot about "securing permission to use someone else's creative work or property"? What was so hard about that?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 10/18/2009
- karinova I'm a Fan of karinova 27 fans permalink
photo

I disagree. The fair use doctrine is really not that hard to figure out, and it's pretty logical, as laws go. It only seems confusing when you're trying to understand what it means for everyone and in every case-- because the rules are different for educators, critics, journalists, artists, etc.

But from a practical point of view, it's pretty easy. If you're an artist, you only have to worry about that part of it, and probably only the particular medium you work in (music, visual arts, whatever). If you're working in good faith (ie: not actively/c­onsciously trying to copy something), it should mostly take care of itself. In fact, it's probably easier for an artist to judge whether s/he is copying something than it is for someone else to judge that later, after the fact. I mean, c'mon: if tracing is involved, you know you're in dangerous territory. Anyway, if you're really not sure, get permission. Problem solved. And if you're not sure AND you can't get permission, don't go there!

(By the way, in 2001, the Supreme Court stated that certain "artistic reproductions of celebrities, such as Andy Warhol's silkscreens of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and Elvis Presley WOULD be protected." http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0502stooge.html .
Don't thank me, thank Google.)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 10/21/2009
photo

the artist should be punished for falsifying the court documents as a separate case.

it doesnt matter which photo he used - they were both from the same event from the same photographer and he forgot which one he used... this in no way changes the merit of the original case.

this whole argument of intellectual property is foolish. you have a photo of the guy running for president at a PUBLIC event. i don't recall ever having to sign an EULA in order to gaze at an image posted on an AP article which is free to read online.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 AM on 10/18/2009
photo

there is a huge difference between viewing a photo and stealing it for your own "artistic" purposes. do you really not understand that?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 AM on 10/18/2009

You are obviously not an artist. Many artists use some type of photo or image for reference when they are creating something. Nothing from the original image is present in his finished work, so this shouldn't be an issue.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 10/18/2009
- Tulka2 I'm a Fan of Tulka2 239 fans permalink
photo

Mashup. It's a whole new world. Defending intellectual property becomes increasingly futile. Which is to say.... we are spawning lawyers like salmon.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 AM on 10/18/2009
- bascombe I'm a Fan of bascombe 28 fans permalink
photo

AP is proving themselves to be just another murdicK.K.K operation.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 AM on 10/18/2009
- satanlite I'm a Fan of satanlite 96 fans permalink
photo

Not impressed by Shepard Fairey or his photoshop skills. This is much ado about nothing and yet another distraction.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 AM on 10/18/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (9 pages total)

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

Connect