Associated Press wants a piece of Shepard Fairey's Hope poster:check itFairey and his attorney claim fair use. I have to agree: None of the original photo was used. Fairey interpreted the image of Obama for his illustration.
Associated Press wants a piece of Shepard Fairey's Hope poster: check it Fairey and his attorney claim fair use. I have to agree: None of the original photo was used. Fairey interpreted the image of Obama for his illustration.
Fairey hasn't profited from it either. I wonder why the it took the AP this long to decide there was a problem. How long has this image been in circulation?
Associated Press wants a piece of Shepard Fairey's Hope poster: check it Fairey and his attorney claim fair use. I have to agree: None of the original photo was used. Fairey interpreted the image of Obama for his illustration.
Fairey hasn't profited from it either. I wonder why the it took the AP this long to decide there was a problem. How long has this image been in circulation?
I heard him on fresh air a week or two ago saying no one had ever contacted him saying they were the photog, but he mentioned it was an AP photo.
Associated Press wants a piece of Shepard Fairey's Hope poster: check it Fairey and his attorney claim fair use. I have to agree: None of the original photo was used. Fairey interpreted the image of Obama for his illustration.
Fairey hasn't profited from it either. I wonder why the it took the AP this long to decide there was a problem. How long has this image been in circulation?
There could be an argument made that the fair use of Obama's image has been one of the fastest growing and lucrative cottage industries in America right now.
Dude's whole career is based on biting other people's art. Surprised he hasn't been sued for it sooner.
Fairey has made a very successful career of recombining and re-contextualizing familiar imagery, but what specific 'other people's art' is he biting? Otherwise, please put down the Haterade.
From Wikipedia on Fair Use in American copyright law:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
Purpose and character[/b] The first factor is about whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
Nature of the copied work[/b] Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional. To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright???only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. The Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy, for example, was purchased and copyrighted by Time magazine. Yet their copyright was not upheld, in the name of the public interest, when they tried to enjoin the reproduction of stills from the film in a history book on the subject in Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates.
Amount and substantiality[/b] The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.
Effect upon work's value[/b] The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses.
It's not cut and dried, but I think Fairey has an excellent case for Fair Use, particularly because the image was substantially transformed, created for the enrichment of the general public, does not contain much of the original image beyond elements of form, and was used, from what I understand, for noncommercial use.
Yeah, Boston Globe had a piece on this the other day as well, on the occasion of his ICA Museum show opening.
Shep's work is kinda '...ehhh,' to these eyes. Feels more like graphic design, or Peter Max for a new generation or some shit. But, the AP photo thing seems silly. The art history 'borrowing,' bothers me more...
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Agreed, there's no mystery at all to Fairey's appropriation of imagery. Where Fairey's success lies is in his deliberate choice of imagery that is now in the public domain. That creeping feeling of familiarity is at the core of his very successful 'propaganda' campaign(s). But what long-dead Secessionist is going to sue Fairey for stealing his work?
He doesn't claim to NOT borrow at all. His prints are all homage based and he doesn't ask for OG credit he just gets dough$tack$. He's not the first and won't be the last to modify an existing image and add his name to it either remember......
Shep's work is kinda '...ehhh,' to these eyes. Feels more like graphic design, or Peter Max for a new generation or some shit.
I gotta disagree with you on that. While Peter Max definitely developed his style by borrowing elements of Art Nouveau and other historical movements, his imagery was ultimately his own. Fairey's work doesn't develop much beyond his sources.
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Picasso, a well-known shit-stirrer, said that originally and folks have been using that [most likely out of context] quote like a crutch for the last century.
No one considered the design of a can of Campbell's soup 'art' until Warhol said it was. That was the genius of it. Fairey isn't re-contextualizing non-art as art. He's re-using art.
But I think I've moved away from the Fair Use argument and started critiquing Fairey's work. Oops.
No one considered the design of a can of Campbell's soup 'art' until Warhol said it was. That was the genius of it. Fairey isn't re-contextualizing non-art as art. He's re-using art.
But I think I've moved away from the Fair Use argument and started critiquing Fairey's work. Oops.
Yeah you have, and ak never used the word ART in her post so you don't need to start proclaiming "that was the genius of it" to us all like you are dropping jewels. Clearly this is about re-use of imagery not whether it's art or not. I have never liked his stuff either though but he seems to be constantly working.
Yeah you have, and ak never used the word ART in her post so you don't need to start proclaiming "that was the genius of it" to us all like you are dropping jewels.
Dropping jewels? Back off, dude. I didn't bring up Warhol in the first place.
I have never liked his stuff either though but he seems to be constantly working.
Did the AP copyright Obama's face? I think he should get paid as well...
actually his parents are the one that created his face so they should get the credit.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
What..Shepard Fairey bite? Never!
This is some "I sampled Funky Drummer first!" shit. Did Fuct clear the rights for that Angela Davis photo before they appropriated it? Am I imagining seeing my sister and my older female cousins rocking belts exactly like those in the early 70s? Did someone at Fuct have a time machine that enabled them to go back to NY circa 1974 and devise Kiss' entire look, graphics, logo, etc? Were Fuct the first people to use Mao's image on an article of clothing? Is the Aachen font Fuct's own creation? GTFOOHWTBS. They're doing exactly the same thing as they're calling out Obey for. Any decent streetwear label is going to be guilty of that kind of appropriation to a degree. Most of them don't display quite the same level of asshurtedness as Fuct seem to be doing.
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Picasso, a well-known shit-stirrer, said that originally and folks have been using that [most likely out of context] quote like a crutch for the last century.
Believe that was actually T.S. Eliot, but your points remain. And, thanks for the knowledge on P. Max... I jsut threw him out as a generation-defining poster artist.
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Picasso, a well-known shit-stirrer, said that originally and folks have been using that [most likely out of context] quote like a crutch for the last century.
Believe that was actually T.S. Eliot, but your points remain. And, thanks for the knowledge on P. Max... I jsut threw him out as a generation-defining poster artist.
Thanks. I totally dig Peter Max's work. And I honestly appreciate some of what Shepard Fairey has done, but I don't put them on the same level of talent or intent.
And some clarification on my part. I realize that I started forming opinions and sharing them while I was poasting about Fairey. My original post was just about the AP going after Fairey (and how I think they don't have a case). I learned more about how much of Fairey's work was based on previous historical works and was rather unpleasantly surprised. So I gotta thank mannybolone for inspiring that confounding Google search.
Isn't it true that Fairey doesn't make a dime from any of this? So, what is this "compensation" they seek?
Not only that, but didn't he donate his work to The Obama Campaign to use as they wish or something along those lines?
Maybe they should think about suing The Obama Campaign as well.
On a side note:
Copyright Infringement is really starting to get out of hand. The whole YouTube and Warner Music Group is just the latest of Copyright Infringement stupidity.
Well, if we're going to sidetrack into a general discussion of dude's work, here's a photo I took a couple of blocks from my apartment. I like it.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Interesting as that link is, I'm stuck as to how the examples listed represent any more of a "bite" than the work of umpteen other streetwear companies, or graphic designers/artists whose work is, broadly speaking, derived from collage or "found" art.
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Picasso, a well-known shit-stirrer, said that originally and folks have been using that [most likely out of context] quote like a crutch for the last century.
Believe that was actually T.S. Eliot, but your points remain. And, thanks for the knowledge on P. Max... I jsut threw him out as a generation-defining poster artist.
"He just steals from me, I steal from everyone." Woody Guthrie
Comments
Fairey hasn't profited from it either. I wonder why the it took the AP this long to decide there was a problem. How long has this image been in circulation?
I heard him on fresh air a week or two ago saying no one had ever contacted him saying they were the photog, but he mentioned it was an AP photo.
There could be an argument made that the fair use of Obama's image has been one of the fastest growing and lucrative cottage industries in America right now.
Do tell...
Fairey has made a very successful career of recombining and re-contextualizing familiar imagery, but what specific 'other people's art' is he biting?
Otherwise, please put down the Haterade.
It's not cut and dried, but I think Fairey has an excellent case for Fair Use, particularly because the image was substantially transformed, created for the enrichment of the general public, does not contain much of the original image beyond elements of form, and was used, from what I understand, for noncommercial use.
http://tesserae.blogspot.com/2007/11/shepard-fairey-street-artist-or.html
Yeah, Boston Globe had a piece on this the other day as well, on the occasion of his ICA Museum show opening.
Shep's work is kinda '...ehhh,' to these eyes. Feels more like graphic design, or Peter Max for a new generation or some shit. But, the AP photo thing seems silly. The art history 'borrowing,' bothers me more...
And, all these asshurt Obey dudes were all on about, 'good poets borrow, great poets steal,' shit. Please to stop with the, 'great artist,' silliness.
Agreed, there's no mystery at all to Fairey's appropriation of imagery.
Where Fairey's success lies is in his deliberate choice of imagery that is now in the public domain. That creeping feeling of familiarity is at the core of his very successful 'propaganda' campaign(s).
But what long-dead Secessionist is going to sue Fairey for stealing his work?
I gotta disagree with you on that. While Peter Max definitely developed his style by borrowing elements of Art Nouveau and other historical movements, his imagery was ultimately his own.
Fairey's work doesn't develop much beyond his sources.
Picasso, a well-known shit-stirrer, said that originally and folks have been using that [most likely out of context] quote like a crutch for the last century.
No one considered the design of a can of Campbell's soup 'art' until Warhol said it was. That was the genius of it.
Fairey isn't re-contextualizing non-art as art. He's re-using art.
But I think I've moved away from the Fair Use argument and started critiquing Fairey's work. Oops.
Yeah you have, and ak never used the word ART in her post so you don't need to start proclaiming "that was the genius of it" to us all like you are dropping jewels.
Clearly this is about re-use of imagery not whether it's art or not.
I have never liked his stuff either though but he seems to be constantly working.
Dropping jewels? Back off, dude. I didn't bring up Warhol in the first place.
See my previous post about his success.
actually his parents are the one that created his face so they should get the credit.
This is some "I sampled Funky Drummer first!" shit. Did Fuct clear the rights for that Angela Davis photo before they appropriated it? Am I imagining seeing my sister and my older female cousins rocking belts exactly like those in the early 70s? Did someone at Fuct have a time machine that enabled them to go back to NY circa 1974 and devise Kiss' entire look, graphics, logo, etc? Were Fuct the first people to use Mao's image on an article of clothing? Is the Aachen font Fuct's own creation? GTFOOHWTBS. They're doing exactly the same thing as they're calling out Obey for. Any decent streetwear label is going to be guilty of that kind of appropriation to a degree. Most of them don't display quite the same level of asshurtedness as Fuct seem to be doing.
http://thegiant.org/wiki/index.php/Category:References
Believe that was actually T.S. Eliot, but your points remain.
And, thanks for the knowledge on P. Max... I jsut threw him out as a generation-defining poster artist.
Thanks. I totally dig Peter Max's work. And I honestly appreciate some of what Shepard Fairey has done, but I don't put them on the same level of talent or intent.
And some clarification on my part. I realize that I started forming opinions and sharing them while I was poasting about Fairey. My original post was just about the AP going after Fairey (and how I think they don't have a case). I learned more about how much of Fairey's work was based on previous historical works and was rather unpleasantly surprised.
So I gotta thank mannybolone for inspiring that confounding Google search.
Not only that, but didn't he donate his work to The Obama Campaign to use as they wish or something along those lines?
Maybe they should think about suing The Obama Campaign as well.
On a side note:
Copyright Infringement is really starting to get out of hand. The whole YouTube and Warner Music Group is just the latest of Copyright Infringement stupidity.
I'm just glad this isn't about Banksy. It would already be a
"He just steals from me, I steal from everyone." Woody Guthrie