Judge dismisses Shepard Fairey Case...

1, 2, 3  

The Sideshow
Posted in: Off Topic

Reply

Should artists be able to use other artists'/ photographers' works without their permission? 10 votes

Yes, always
20% 20% 2 votes

Yes, but only after the copyright has expired
30% 30% 3 votes

No
50% 50% 5 votes

  • User avatar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 07800.html

Is it just me or is anyone else totally confused over the entire lawsuit to begin with? I don't understand why he sued them

I can understand why they would take him to court; but why was it the other way around???


  • User avatar
I only think it's okay to use someone else's image/work under circumstances like satire etc. To me there's a big difference between using for example Mickey Mouse for some sort of social commentary piece as opposed to just photoshoping him different colors and selling it.


  • User avatar
Shepard transformed what was a pretty straightforward news photo into a bold graphic symbol. I think that's fair use in this case. Maybe he could have pushed it a little more, or even shot the photo himself, but sometimes you can't get access to people or tools, so you make do with what you have. And since it's pretty easy to get a super-high res photo of the president, why not start there?

Collage, appropriation and re-contextualizing other's photos was happening in the Dada movement in 1915, so I'd say this is hardly new. It's also my modus operandi; everything is fair use in art, but there's great responsibility to transform the image far beyond the source. There's an art to this kind of transformation and some are much better than others.

Personally, I try to work the source and obfuscate obvious clues, often introducing my own photos into the mix. Other times it's about bringing in a mix of sources and blending them into something entirely different.

I can see how people think that's too derivative of a process, but I'm drawn to the process, it's about changing something and hopefully adding an unexpected surprise to the viewer.

Put me down for yes, assuming the artist will transform the source to create something new


  • User avatar
  • 450 posts
  • from Cleveland, Ohio
  • profile
Miskat wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/shepard-fairey-ap-suit-dropped_n_807800.html

Is it just me or is anyone else totally confused over the entire lawsuit to begin with? I don't understand why he sued them

I can understand why they would take him to court; but why was it the other way around???


Counter-suits seems to be de rigeur practice for pretty much everything these days...it gives the initial defendant a chance to latch on to any impropriety in the original suit as well as give them a bargaining chip (you drop yours, i'll drop mine).


SBGallery wrote:

Counter-suits seems to be de rigeur practice for pretty much everything these days...it gives the initial defendant a chance to latch on to any impropriety in the original suit as well as give them a bargaining chip (you drop yours, i'll drop mine).



I think Steve might have it right on why Shep sued.
Shep was pretty obnoxious throughout the whole deal though. The whole lying with the evidence thing was pretty lame and low of him. If he knew he was in the right I don't believe he would have erased the image he used and turned in a totally different one to court. It's one thing if he would have just used it for an artistic purpose, but to mass produce said image for a profit and ride it as your own is a totally different thing altogether.

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229

  • User avatar
jaysea420 wrote:
but to mass produce said image for a profit and ride it as your own is a totally different thing altogether.


The image Shepard mass produced is his own; it looks nothing like the original photo. If he made a charcoal drawing from a photo in Time magazine, would you still say he rode someone else's image to profit?

Image

Does Shepard's use of digital tools make his art less transformative than brushing oil on canvas?


It's transformed. Why did he have to lie about it.


  • User avatar
I actually don't think it's different enough-- I have a lot of respect for photographers; at the very least credit your sources

If this had been done in charcoal and looked the same I would still think it was too close.

Let's change it up a bit-- if someone repainted a painters image; here is an original Audrey Kawasaki and a Mijn Schatje digital take-off:
Image


  • User avatar
  • 757 posts
  • from San Diego/Los Angeles
  • profile
this is the actual image he used.

Image

i think its a lesson learned. I have notice Fairey now cites his work properly. I have noticed his portrait pieces are sometimes signed by the photographer as well, but if not are referenced in his gallery. I honestly believe that the AP was really looking for the money, not for the credit of the picture. But then again i really do not know. Just my opinion.


Zero Mistro, that's the photo Shepard originally said he used. According to a news report I read awhile back it cited the court papers said he didn't use that one. He lied about using that one. He instead used a closeup photo of Obama.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-29/obama-hope-artist-fairey-may-plead-the-fifth-in-ap-lawsuit.html


I agree with Kathie. I think the rendering Shep did looks VERY similar to the original photo.

Image

Image



here's some useful info for learning about "Fair Use":
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229

  • User avatar
just fyi my source was the NYTimes


  • User avatar
  • 757 posts
  • from San Diego/Los Angeles
  • profile
Ooops sorry, i thought it was just a cropped image. but i do see the diffence. Regardless i still think the AP just wants to get their pockets filled.


  • User avatar
well, the only way they would fill their pockets is if they won and SF was a multi-millionaire because lawyers are the only ones who win in lawsuits-- they're expensive and all-consuming and even if you win if the person isn't wealthy good luck collecting

besides, if you were a photographer and someone took your image and made what is probably the most popular image in the history of merchandising, wouldn't you think you deserve some sort of royalty or licensing fee?


  • User avatar
Miskat wrote:
I actually don't think it's different enough-- I have a lot of respect for photographers; at the very least credit your sources

If this had been done in charcoal and looked the same I would still think it was too close.

Let's change it up a bit-- if someone repainted a painters image; here is an original Audrey Kawasaki and a Mijn Schatje digital take-off:
Image



NEVER in a million years would I have noticed that, unless both paintings were next to each other with a sign that said 'can you find the similarity?'

I imagine Schatje isn't good at drawing the female form? I mean, the image is nothing like the first, so I can't figure any other reason to just copy the body position.


Zero Mistro wrote:
Ooops sorry, i thought it was just a cropped image. but i do see the diffence. Regardless i still think the AP just wants to get their pockets filled.



oh, no doubt about that. AP wanted a piece of the pie. The sad part is Shep could have probably licensed the photo from the AP for some silly low price (like $60) and would have been in the clear.

I saw AP has this little page devoted to the suit:
http://www.ap.org/iprights/faq.html


Miskat wrote:
well, the only way they would fill their pockets is if they won and SF was a multi-millionaire because lawyers are the only ones who win in lawsuits-- they're expensive and all-consuming and even if you win if the person isn't wealthy good luck collecting

besides, if you were a photographer and someone took your image and made what is probably the most popular image in the history of merchandising, wouldn't you think you deserve some sort of royalty or licensing fee?


I'm sure Shep made butt loads of money from it. Maybe not a million, but many hundreds of thousands. I think the AP said somewhere they believe him and his company to have made $400,000+ from the image and merchandising. If you take into account the publicity he got from it he could have made a lot more. Also, there is future value attached to the image, so it's probably really tough to say what the image is really worth.

AP probably has lawyers on staff, or on a retainer, so they're just basically on stand by all the time waiting for this stuff to happen. Shep probably had to pay more for his attorney than AP had to pay for theirs.

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229


1, 2, 3  

The Sideshow
Posted in: Off Topic

Reply

Topic tools: ← Previous topicNext topic →


remember me?

Time : 1.545s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off