1) Fair Use. From what I have seen artists (or satirist, musicians...) lose in the lower courts and win if they can afford to take it to the supreme court (In other news Justice Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer). Dead Kennedys and 2 Live Crew are recent examples.
2) You all are very uptight about art.
3) I think Fairey may have sold some signed prints for profit. He donated the work/image to the Obama campaign and produced prints for them.
His work (or art) may consist of more than just producing a known image. Same as Warhol and Lichtenstein. I don't know or care either way. I like his Obama images and I think AP is making a big mistake.
I don't really have much of an opinion on SF's actual art, but I will say that one year I got to go on a free cruise and the trip went like this: -Before flying to Miami, saw a kid with an OBEY shirt on -On the bus going through Miami to the boat, saw a big OBEY poster on the street -Boat docks in Cozumel, Mexico. Walking down the street, I look at the back of a sign, OBEY sticker.
These cries of "plagiarism" seem sorta silly to me. I don't really see how what Fairey's doing is a whole lot different than what a lot of pop-culture design has done for the better part of the 20th century.
These cries of "plagiarism" seem sorta silly to me. I don't really see how what Fairey's doing is a whole lot different than what a lot of pop-culture design has done for the better part of the 20th century.
Ok, so Shep's first big museum show is opening in Boston this weekend. And, my friend used to show him at his gallery, so I got tickets to his lecture tonight for the opening.
Again, he's not really my guy, but I figured I'd see what he had to say before judging...
I respect his roots as a skate punk, etc. That was pretty legit, and drove his work.
He knows plenty about screen printing and multiples, that is undeniable.
Stealing images, in this instance, ain't shit. He definitely stylizes them into his own look- I mean, really, that AP image is just another disposable shot of the candidate without this poster.
I respect that he has created his own aesthetic, and has created a following. I think I'm not, as far as taste goes, a part of that.
It is definitely design, no art... falls flat in a museum setting. Underwhelming in that setting, and they look like posters, which makes sense, because that's what they are. But, next to works of 'fine art,' they are way overmatched.
I respect his hustle; but, given that in the lecture he said, 'hey, I work design for Saks Fifth, because I'm a capitalist,' I had a hard time with his 'anti-capitalist,' propaganda. And, yes, if I didn't like the art of any artist who had major inconsistencies, my walls, shelves, and turntable would all be bare. But, given that I'm not his biggest fan to begin with, I don't feel the need to be as overly forgiving.
But, hey... I like that he has created his own style which is a combination of all his influences- Propaganda, fine art, skate punk, hip hop, etc. And, in my mind, it is definitely 'fair use'.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 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.
who's defending other streetwear labels?
I never said anyone was. Just that that kind of approach is commonplace amongst those labels; Supreme's adaptation of the Stax logo which substituted a cocked 9mm for the fingerpop image, Silas jacking the Sabbath Bloody Sabbath typeface for one of their shirts a few years back, Holmes flipping the Santana logo for a shirt that read "Satan", Fuct's Goodfellas shirt with the picture of Liotta, De Niro, Pesci and Sorvino, or their X-Small shirt, for which they "borrowed" the X-Large chimp/graphic (which was in turn "inspired" by the Ben Davis logo). They all do it, and almost always with non-original source material - what makes Obey any different/worse? Apart, perhaps, from the fact that Shepard Fairey has a higher profile and a little bit of cachet in the art world?
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.
LAWSUIT OF THE FUTURE. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
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.
LAWSUIT OF THE FUTURE. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
That isn't even a joke. The front cover of the first Chemical Brothers album was going to feature a picture of a pregnant woman in a field, her blouse open to show her belly. The legal department of the band's US label insisted they change it in case they were sued by the unborn child for using the image without his/her permission.
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.
LAWSUIT OF THE FUTURE. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
That isn't even a joke. The front cover of the first Chemical Brothers album was going to feature a picture of a pregnant woman in a field, her blouse open to show her belly. The legal department of the band's US label insisted they change it in case they were sued by the unborn child for using the image without his/her permission.
Shit. Wasn't the woman a willing participant in the photo? The child-cum-adult might as well sue their mother. At some point, art suffers more from opportunists than critical detractors. You can't apply privacy laws to paparazzi but you can to art? BS.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
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.
LAWSUIT OF THE FUTURE. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
That isn't even a joke. The front cover of the first Chemical Brothers album was going to feature a picture of a pregnant woman in a field, her blouse open to show her belly. The legal department of the band's US label insisted they change it in case they were sued by the unborn child for using the image without his/her permission.
Shit. Wasn't the woman a willing participant in the photo? The child-cum-adult might as well sue their mother. At some point, art suffers from opportunists. You can't apply privacy laws to paparazzi but you can to art? BS.
I think it was a stock photo or similar, rather than a specific commission for the album cover. If I remember rightly, they'd got the necessary approval from the photog or the agency or whatever, but then the lawyers said something like, if you're going to insist on using this shot, we can't be held liable for any legal action that might result, etc. "What legal action?", asked the Chems. "Well, the unborn baby could sue..."
All I know is if I was a photographer and a political group that I didn't agree with used one of my photos in the same fashion to promote their cause I would want very dime of the money they raised with my image.
Photographers are getting very paranoid about their copyrights, anyone who using images without permission in a high profile manner better get ready because getting photo rights is going to be like getting samples cleared before too long.
All I know is if I was a photographer and a political group that I didn't agree with used one of my photos in the same fashion to promote their cause I would want very dime of the money they raised with my image.
Photographers are getting very paranoid about their copyrights, anyone who using images without permission in a high profile manner better get ready because getting photo rights is going to be like getting samples cleared before too long.
Copyrights are an 18th century idea. Get over it.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
All I know is if I was a photographer and a political group that I didn't agree with used one of my photos in the same fashion to promote their cause I would want very dime of the money they raised with my image.
Photographers are getting very paranoid about their copyrights, anyone who using images without permission in a high profile manner better get ready because getting photo rights is going to be like getting samples cleared before too long.
Copyrights are an 18th century idea. Get over it.
Nah, I disagree, and I suspect if your main source of income came from copyrights you owned, then you would too.
There's certainly something to be said for making copyright clearance of all kinds more easily obtainable and perhaps less prohibitively expensive. Nonetheless, I can't say I think there's anything wrong in people asking what they consider a fair price to use their shit, whether it's an image, a sample, a lyric or whatever. Basically, the internet has fucked up the money - far too many people now believe that, if it's on the web somewhere, then it's copyright-free and fair game. Wrong.
That doesn't alter the fact that bitching about someone stealing something off you, when you stole that something to begin with, is
All I know is if I was a photographer and a political group that I didn't agree with used one of my photos in the same fashion to promote their cause I would want very dime of the money they raised with my image.
Photographers are getting very paranoid about their copyrights, anyone who using images without permission in a high profile manner better get ready because getting photo rights is going to be like getting samples cleared before too long.
Copyrights are an 18th century idea. Get over it.
Nah, I disagree, and I suspect if your main source of income came from copyrights you owned, then you would too.
There's certainly something to be said for making copyright clearance of all kinds more easily obtainable and perhaps less prohibitively expensive. Nonetheless, I can't say I think there's anything wrong in people asking what they consider a fair price to use their shit, whether it's an image, a sample, a lyric or whatever. Basically, the internet has fucked up the money - far too many people now believe that, if it's on the web somewhere, then it's copyright-free and fair game. Wrong.
That doesn't alter the fact that bitching about someone stealing something off you, when you stole that something to begin with, is
Charge it to the game, and move on.
There are numerous problems with our copyright laws. I have said here before.
One is that in the 1700s it took a lot of time and expense to copy something. Today, our computers store every copyrighted image and sound we experience with out us having to make any effort or expense.
While I am on my high horse, the constitution says that congress will make laws; "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
As the laws stand today they are not for "limited times" nor do they work to promote the arts.
I should just make a link to this so I don't have to type this out every few months when we have this conversation.
"why didn't you just play the drums instead of sampling james brown?" "it sounds much better" "yea, you're right"
some of you are acting pretty about this whole thing... are you also going to burn a cd of your favorite songs that Pete Rock , Primo and Dilla / any number of hip-hop producers sampled and send them to the publishing companies? According to your position on Fairey , I think that would be the only logical next step.
some of you are acting pretty about this whole thing... are you also going to burn a cd of your favorite songs that Pete Rock , Primo and Dilla / any number of hip-hop producers sampled and send them to the publishing companies? According to your position on Fairey , I think that would be the only logical next step.
There's a big difference between ratting on someone and saying that I understand why a photographer (or musician) would want to get paid for someone using my creation without my permission. I'm all for borrowing and creatively re-arranging pieces of other's work, but if you just take the whole photo or the whole melody you are setting yourself up for a fall in this day and age.
I wonder if Fairey cared one way or the other about the million bootlegs of his HOPE design on t-shirts, hats, and other memorabilia during the inauguration. It was on everything.
Comments
Or discussing Fair Use n American copyright law. Which is pretty hip hop itself.
2) You all are very uptight about art.
3) I think Fairey may have sold some signed prints for profit. He donated the work/image to the Obama campaign and produced prints for them.
His work (or art) may consist of more than just producing a known image. Same as Warhol and Lichtenstein. I don't know or care either way. I like his Obama images and I think AP is making a big mistake.
Other breaking news: The sky is blue.
-Before flying to Miami, saw a kid with an OBEY shirt on
-On the bus going through Miami to the boat, saw a big OBEY poster on the street
-Boat docks in Cozumel, Mexico. Walking down the street, I look at the back of a sign, OBEY sticker.
I was pretty impressed
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
actually dude is making mad moves in the art world.
He's starting to get some serious shine.
PS catch me DJing at Faireys gallery in Echo Park in about 3 weeks. I will be spinning well known and uncleared samples with biting irony
spoken like a true faux-populist
Again, he's not really my guy, but I figured I'd see what he had to say before judging...
I respect his roots as a skate punk, etc. That was pretty legit, and drove his work.
He knows plenty about screen printing and multiples, that is undeniable.
Stealing images, in this instance, ain't shit. He definitely stylizes them into his own look- I mean, really, that AP image is just another disposable shot of the candidate without this poster.
I respect that he has created his own aesthetic, and has created a following. I think I'm not, as far as taste goes, a part of that.
It is definitely design, no art... falls flat in a museum setting. Underwhelming in that setting, and they look like posters, which makes sense, because that's what they are. But, next to works of 'fine art,' they are way overmatched.
I respect his hustle; but, given that in the lecture he said, 'hey, I work design for Saks Fifth, because I'm a capitalist,' I had a hard time with his 'anti-capitalist,' propaganda. And, yes, if I didn't like the art of any artist who had major inconsistencies, my walls, shelves, and turntable would all be bare. But, given that I'm not his biggest fan to begin with, I don't feel the need to be as overly forgiving.
But, hey... I like that he has created his own style which is a combination of all his influences- Propaganda, fine art, skate punk, hip hop, etc. And, in my mind, it is definitely 'fair use'.
As Art, though, it is not my fare(y).
I never said anyone was. Just that that kind of approach is commonplace amongst those labels; Supreme's adaptation of the Stax logo which substituted a cocked 9mm for the fingerpop image, Silas jacking the Sabbath Bloody Sabbath typeface for one of their shirts a few years back, Holmes flipping the Santana logo for a shirt that read "Satan", Fuct's Goodfellas shirt with the picture of Liotta, De Niro, Pesci and Sorvino, or their X-Small shirt, for which they "borrowed" the X-Large chimp/graphic (which was in turn "inspired" by the Ben Davis logo). They all do it, and almost always with non-original source material - what makes Obey any different/worse? Apart, perhaps, from the fact that Shepard Fairey has a higher profile and a little bit of cachet in the art world?
LAWSUIT OF THE FUTURE. THIS WILL HAPPEN.
That isn't even a joke. The front cover of the first Chemical Brothers album was going to feature a picture of a pregnant woman in a field, her blouse open to show her belly. The legal department of the band's US label insisted they change it in case they were sued by the unborn child for using the image without his/her permission.
Shit. Wasn't the woman a willing participant in the photo? The child-cum-adult might as well sue their mother. At some point, art suffers more from opportunists than critical detractors. You can't apply privacy laws to paparazzi but you can to art? BS.
I think it was a stock photo or similar, rather than a specific commission for the album cover. If I remember rightly, they'd got the necessary approval from the photog or the agency or whatever, but then the lawyers said something like, if you're going to insist on using this shot, we can't be held liable for any legal action that might result, etc. "What legal action?", asked the Chems. "Well, the unborn baby could sue..."
Child actors are such prima donnas. I tell ya.
Photographers are getting very paranoid about their copyrights, anyone who using images without permission in a high profile manner better get ready because getting photo rights is going to be like getting samples cleared before too long.
Copyrights are an 18th century idea. Get over it.
Nah, I disagree, and I suspect if your main source of income came from copyrights you owned, then you would too.
There's certainly something to be said for making copyright clearance of all kinds more easily obtainable and perhaps less prohibitively expensive. Nonetheless, I can't say I think there's anything wrong in people asking what they consider a fair price to use their shit, whether it's an image, a sample, a lyric or whatever. Basically, the internet has fucked up the money - far too many people now believe that, if it's on the web somewhere, then it's copyright-free and fair game. Wrong.
That doesn't alter the fact that bitching about someone stealing something off you, when you stole that something to begin with, is
Charge it to the game, and move on.
There are numerous problems with our copyright laws. I have said here before.
One is that in the 1700s it took a lot of time and expense to copy something.
Today, our computers store every copyrighted image and sound we experience with out us having to make any effort or expense.
While I am on my high horse, the constitution says that congress will make laws; "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
As the laws stand today they are not for "limited times" nor do they work to promote the arts.
I should just make a link to this so I don't have to type this out every few months when we have this conversation.
"it sounds much better"
"yea, you're right"
some of you are acting pretty
There's a big difference between ratting on someone and saying that I understand why a photographer (or musician) would want to get paid for someone using my creation without my permission. I'm all for borrowing and creatively re-arranging pieces of other's work, but if you just take the whole photo or the whole melody you are setting yourself up for a fall in this day and age.
Probably not.