OBAMA HOPE poster

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rodevon10, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. rodevon10

    rodevon10 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern USA
    What are your opinions on this article. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. If the presidents image is part of the public domain then why is there a question? Whether the HOPE poster was made from a photograph or from memory, what is the big deal. Obama's image is EVERYWHERE! I think that credit should be given where it is due, however, I really don't see anything so SPECTACULAR about the original photograph that makes it so unique as to deserve particular importance before it was CREATIVELY turned into a work of art by the graphic artist in question.

    Any thoughts??? Here is the linkhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_en_ot/obama_poster
     

    Attached Files:

    #1 rodevon10, Feb 4, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  2. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree; it sounds like a bunch of hooey, and I expect that the AP will lose soundly in court.

    The AP owns copyright in the photograph, but not in the likeness of the person in the photograph. (There's a difference between a photograph of a public figure, and say, publicity shots of a model in your agency: as the employer of the model, you also have rights to that model's likeness.) Fairey's use reproduces the likeness, but not the photographic details, and so does not infringe on AP's intellectual property.

    I'm not a lawyer, but this strikes me as an easily open-and-shut case on the basis of copyright infringement.

    There's a slim chance that Fairey may have entered into some kind of contractual licensing arrangement when he acquired the AP photo (I don't know how he came into possession of the photo), and that the poster is a breach of that contract, but I don't see it, frankly.
     
  3. ElDorado77

    ElDorado77 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    fuck AP. are paint companies gonna start asking painters for royalties? give me a fucking break.
     
  4. B_bi_in_socal

    B_bi_in_socal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL I love this. Corporate lawyers sucking up money from an idiot, death-worshipping artist and the left-leaning propaganda machine known as the AP.

    LOL! That's like having your cake and eating it, too!
     
  5. ConnerM360

    ConnerM360 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
    I'm with you guys on this one sounds silly.
     
  6. uniqueusername

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Put yourselves in AP's shoes: If you took a photo and put it on your blog, then someone took your photo and, without so much as crediting you with it, retouched it and made millions selling it, I think you would be pretty angry.

    Obama owns his own likeness, but the AP owns that particular photo. Bear in mind that there is a lot more to a photo than the subject: there's the lighting, the angle, the effort put into getting close enough to take the photo in the first place... Pretty much everything about it belongs to the photographer or, in this case, the photographer's employer.
     
  7. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,460
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Eh... it's a fad that'll die out by year's end. Not sure what the fuss is over... unless there is some mass marketing schema that will dupe the masses... oh wait, that kinda already happened now, didn't it?!
     
  8. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,460
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    BTW: redevon... excellent avatar!!!
     
  9. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think these are sufficient -- what Fairey did to the photograph was probably sufficiently transformative that lighting and angle will weigh slightly. Effort is not a legal foundation for copyright protection. An improvised jazz riff is just as protected as a dissertation.

    If it weren't nearly 1 am, I might look up Kelly vs. Arriba to see if anything from that case is relevant here. (That's the case that said that search engines could reproduce thumbnails of copyrighted photos in their search results -- I figure that use is transformational only in the aspect of size; what Fairey did was much more substantial.)
     
  10. rodevon10

    rodevon10 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern USA
    #10 rodevon10, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  11. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    It would seem like it could be a little inconvenient for Obama for someone else to have rights to his image, a bit like the artist formerly known as Prince.
     
  12. bearonwry

    bearonwry New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SW Ohio, Cincinnati
    Well if you google this gy this is not the first time this has happened to him...
    from what i have seen it looks like this guys has made a career of steeling others work and passing it off as his own art...sounds kinda lame to me.I like what I saw of his work but if he does not give credit where credit is due then he should have to pay for the rights to the property he alters and passes off as his own.

    Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey
     
  13. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    In this post you created, you used Matthew Carter's work and didn't give him any credit. Matthew Carter is the designer of the font your post appears in. In fact, I'll wager you hadn't ever thought about Matthew Carter, or knew who he was, until I pointed out how you've used his work without attribution.

    But it's not copyright infringement -- you're not passing off the font as your work; you're passing off the words you created with it. You've combined words in a way that no one else has ever done before, and the fact that you're using Matthew Carter's font in the process is incidental: it's a necessary element of your work, but it's not the part that you're taking credit for.

    What Shepard Fairey's done is imposed a visual style -- recropping, a simplified stencil, drastic color alterations, a caption, and an overall 'mood' -- onto a professionally shot, but pedestrian, stock photograph. It's hard to justify the insinuation that what Fairey's passing off as "his" is the original stock photograph. It was a necessary element of his work, but not the part that he's taking credit for.
     
  14. bearonwry

    bearonwry New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SW Ohio, Cincinnati
    well perhaps in this instance, but a lot of his other work he has changed very little.
    So taking a picture of a picture is a different picture, and the original artist deserves no credit?
    from what I read he started with Andre The Giant posters where all he did was write "Has A Posse" on an existing poster....and started his "movement".

    I like his works, they are stylish and have a good look to them.
    But I think the reason for the controversy is because of his reputation as a plagiarist.
     
  15. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    Some one in hear made mention in a thread to put Obamas picture on a phone book and sell it to make money, isn't it getting a bit stupid now. After seeing all this crap heading up to the election I was ready to have an end to it. Well dreams don't always come true.
     
  16. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    On a personal aside, I hope that Shepard Fairey's case is dropped, but that someone nails those irritating 'we painted these quarters and are selling them for $20 each' people.
     
  17. nicenycdick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    15
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York, NY
    To the extent that Fairey "used" any part of the original photo without consent or permission, he infringed on AP's copyright. The line is very thin here and will probably come down to the actual method used by Fairey in creating his work. It has been held that an artist is free to copy by hand another work and give it his own interpretation. But in cases where the original work was transformed by paint or other media, it has been held to be an infringement. For example, if Fairey had hand drawn his work after seeing the original photo, this would be an interpretation and not a transformation. But if he took a copy of the original work and overlayed his work, it is a transformation and infringes AP's copyright.

    Federal and State copyright law protects intellectual property and I could site statute and case law to elaborate here. But even those cases lay out only the guidelines for determining the rights of the parties involved. In the end, a Court will balance the equities and make a decision based upon industry standards, the economics of the marketplace and fairness (I have been involved in many cases where the law has clearly been on the side of the "wrong" party and the Judge has found a clever and supportable way to re-interpret exisiting law in order to reach a just result.)

    I understand that people find these distinctions absurd, but the law has to draw a line somewhere. If it didn't, rights in intellectual property would cease to exist and all artists would suffer (as they had for most of human history). In this case, the line is much finer and, when drawn, seems almost arbitrary. But it still must be drawn or we would have a society where marketing is rewarded but artistic skill is not.
     
  18. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Right up until the last three words: Not all transformative uses are held to be infringing. The courts may find that it's infringing, but they've given broad fair use protections to less-transformative uses than this one.
     
  19. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,460
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Interesting that the BO team didn't care about the image and marketability before the election... now it's hands off.
     
  20. nicenycdick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    15
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York, NY

    That is true...this is a grey and unsettled area. While it may be infringing (as I think I said), there are issues of fair use, especially when you are dealing with public/semi-public figures or issues. And, of course, fair use is more strictly applied where the transformative use is a for-profit one. The Court will also look at whether the transformation was such that the work as transformed now projects a wholly different and independent image (i.e., whether the new work artistically stands on its own or still owes much of its merit to aspects of the original piece.) None of these issues are black-and-white and, in the end, the Justices will decide this one on the basis of fairness, I believe. We will see...
     
    #20 nicenycdick, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted