AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image

[obeygiant]

http://i40.tinypic.com/2qxyt8i.jpg
NEW YORK (AP) - On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.

"AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."

Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.

A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.

Shep has made quite a bit of money on that image and it looks like AP wants a piece... oops.

[Abstract]

Obama's face is Obama's face. It's not the face that makes the image effective, nor is it the quality of the image captured in the photo. What makes the image powerful is the design of the image, and the colours used. The photo was just a convenient way to get Obama's face, since Obama surely didn't have time to sit there and model. What's valuable, the face or the execution of the art itself?

Just like you can't own an idea for a TV show or film because execution is what's important (think about how many shows and films are exactly the same), I don't believe it's right to profit from this. The stuff I said about Obama's photo is just my opinion though. I don't know about the legal side of it.

[MacNut]

The problem is that he did not create an original image, he copied a picture.

[jecapaga]

Actually, Shepard hasn't made a dime off any of the images and prints he did for the campaign...and there were several. All proceeds donated to the campaign. Those making money off this work are those selling them for huge profit on ebay.

[Consultant]

Modified version of copyright work is still copyright infringement.

Actually, Shepard hasn't made a dime off any of the images and prints he did for the campaign...and there were several. All proceeds donated to the campaign. Those making money off this work are those selling them for huge profit on ebay.

If that's true, f the artist did not make any money, it's hard to get money from it,
since there is some original work involved, and especially after so much time has passed.

[Drumjim85]

Obama's face is Obama's face. It's not the face that makes the image effective, nor is it the quality of the image captured in the photo. What makes the image powerful is the design of the image, and the colours used. The photo was just a convenient way to get Obama's face, since Obama surely didn't have time to sit there and model. What's valuable, the face or the execution of the art itself?

that's not quite how copyright law works...

[BreederCreature]

"Only when people are trying to just bootleg it for profit have I tried to protect the copyright." - Fairey on The Colbert Report (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215976/january-15-2009/shepard-fairey) (skip to 1:30)

[Thomas Veil]

This guy just can't catch a break.

Obama 'Hope' Artist Arrested In Boston (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18662913/detail.html)

Artist Arrested As He Entered His Exhibit

BOSTON -- The controversial street artist who gained fame with his red, white and blue posters of President Barack Obama was arrested in Boston Friday night, Boston police said.

Shepard Fairey, 38, was arrested on two outstanding warrants as he was about to enter an exhibition of his work at the Institute of Contemporary Art. Fairey was charged with damage to property for having painted two Boston area locations with graffiti, spokesman James Kenneally said.

Fairey told the Los Angeles Times last year that his "Obey Giant" street art campaign had led to his arrest many times.

Boston police said he had painted his "Andre The Giant" graffiti near an entrance to the Massachusetts Turpike and the Boston University bridge across the Charles River.Ah well. Nothing recedes like success.

[Spizzo]

Fairey was charged with damage to property for having painted two Boston area locations with graffiti...

Can't they tell the difference between pasting and painting? :rolleyes:

[decksnap]

I used to like the 'style' of this guy but I have lost all respect for him. He really is just a plagiarist with very little to add to the world of art.

This is a good read. Obey Plaigarist Shepard Fairy (http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm)

Obama's face is Obama's face. It's not the face that makes the image effective, nor is it the quality of the image captured in the photo. What makes the image powerful is the design of the image, and the colours used. The photo was just a convenient way to get Obama's face, since Obama surely didn't have time to sit there and model. What's valuable, the face or the execution of the art itself?

Just like you can't own an idea for a TV show or film because execution is what's important (think about how many shows and films are exactly the same), I don't believe it's right to profit from this. The stuff I said about Obama's photo is just my opinion though. I don't know about the legal side of it.

The photo was the main thrust of the 'execution' in this case.

If Shepard Fairy took his own photo of Obama and traced it with the pen tool, rather than take some other professional's photo and trace it with the pen tool, it would not have been so iconic.

[LethalWolfe]

Just like you can't own an idea for a TV show or film because execution is what's important (think about how many shows and films are exactly the same), I don't believe it's right to profit from this. The stuff I said about Obama's photo is just my opinion though. I don't know about the legal side of it.
Actually you can own an idea. That's the whole basis of intellectual property.


Lethal

[Abstract]

^^^I don't know. I figured that I was going to be told that I was wrong regarding the "importance" of the photo, when the art is actually the red, white, and blue colours in the photo, and how it's used which makes it art.


However, I'm not sure if you can own an idea, although this is entirely separate and actually off-topic from the Obama image thing. HERE (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090130/0226433580.shtml) is a recent "article" in Techdirt which I read that discusses the notion of ownership of an idea. The article isn't related to this story, but I just feel that this really should extend to art, and what is of value. Creativity is what's valued, and the execution of an idea; in this instance, the photo isn't of value to anyone. It wasn't even of value to the AP, who actually had no idea that their photo was copied until just recently. The photographer himself (Mannie Garcia) has said that he doesn't mind the photo being used. Maybe he doesn't care because he feels the same way, or maybe it's because he's a Democrat and Obama fan. I don't know. Of course, none of that matters since it's now the AP's photo.

[LethalWolfe]

People can own ideas. Again, that's basically the basis for intellectual property. Obviously the more vague and common your idea the harder it will be for you to claim ownership of it (like in the link you posted), but the more specific and unique the idea the easier it is to legally claim as your own. For example, can anyone make a sci-fi movie set in space? Sure. Can anyone make a sci-fi movie set in the Star Wars universe? No. No one owns the concept of a space adventure but George Lucas does own the concepts that create the Star Wars universe.

Everything starts out as an idea which is why they are so valuable. I mean, you can buy a Coke for $1 but good luck trying to buy the formula, the idea, about how to make Coke.


Lethal

[kewpid]

Actually you can own an idea. That's the whole basis of intellectual property.


Lethal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide

[LethalWolfe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide
From your link:

An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Copyright therefore may not subsist in the idea of a man venturing out on a quest, but may subsist in a particular story which follows that pattern.
Gee, sounds a lot like the sci-fi/Star Wars example I gave in my previous post.


Lethal

[Thomas Veil]

It's an accepted axiom that nobody can own an idea, just the expression of that idea, which is what kewpid is saying.

Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story.(Italics mine.)

Therefore nobody owns the idea of in interplanetary space war, but somebody does own the Earth-Minbari war, which is a particular expression of that idea. Nobody owns the idea of a cell phone that also plays music, runs the internet, etc., but Apple does own the iPhone, which is one expression of that idea.

[Drumjim85]

If only creative commons was more widely adopted ... If they're not going to make money out of it (commercial use), whats wrong with having your art legally inspire others to expand upon it.

[LethalWolfe]

It's an accepted axiom that nobody can own an idea, just the expression of that idea, which is what kewpid is saying.
In slightly different language I communicated exactly the same concept in a previous post. If kewpid wanted to inform me that I did not use the specific, technically correct language that's cool. But kewpid either ignored or mis-read my other post because he/she tried to telling me something I had already said.

Therefore nobody owns the idea of in interplanetary space war, but somebody does own the Earth-Minbari war, which is a particular expression of that idea.
Gee, that sounds a lot like the sci-fi/Star Wars example I used two posts ago. ;)


Lethal

[Thomas Veil]

Gee, that sounds a lot like the sci-fi/Star Wars example I used two posts ago. ;)Well, uh, yeah, I was picking up on your lead.

[kewpid]

I was trying to communicate that copyright law only protects your expression of an idea, not the idea itself. You cannot own an idea as legally defined.

[obeygiant]

If Shep saw the image and then painted it from memory would that be illegal? If I saw the inauguration on television then painted a picture of it and made millions, would CNN have claim to it?

[decksnap]

If Shep saw the image and then painted it from memory would that be illegal? If I saw the inauguration on television then painted a picture of it and made millions, would CNN have claim to it?

You know he traced it in Illustrator, right?

[obeygiant]

^^ well thats a kicker. :)

[Consultant]

The artist is countersuing... Ouch. This is going to get messy.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/09/obama-hope-artist-files-suit-against-ap/

[obeygiant]

The artist is countersuing... Ouch. This is going to get messy.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/09/obama-hope-artist-files-suit-against-ap/

“Fairey transformed the literal depiction contained in the Garcia photograph into a stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that creates powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message that has no analogue in the original photo.”


Thats awesome...good lawyer.

[Abstract]

Thats awesome...good lawyer.

Hey, that's what I said (except I'm less wordy). ;)

[Drumjim85]

Thats awesome...good lawyer.

Copyright law is out dated. If he wins hopefully it could start a movement to fix the law. (but probably just wishful thinking)

[Consultant]

Well the main problem is that even if he did "trace" over an image, the original artist should get a cut of the profit. Not only it's morally fair, the copyright law pretty much guarantees it.

This person has a gallery show, and obviously are selling some work based on the work derived from someone else's work, so it's fair to provide a cut. Not 100% of profit, but a royalty.

So if your boss takes your work, made some changes, and said "I've revised and improved what you have, it's my work so y ou are not getting paid", what would you think?

BTW, lawyers can CLAIM whatever they want, but doesn't mean their claim will hold.

[LethalWolfe]

So if your boss takes your work, made some changes, and said "I've revised and improved what you have, it's my work so y ou are not getting paid", what would you think?
That analogy isn't quite the same because in a typical employer/employee relationship anything created is the property of the employer, not the employee.


Lethal

[Consultant]

That analogy isn't quite the same because in a typical employer/employee relationship anything created is the property of the employer, not the employee.


Lethal

Substitute boss with someone with access to your work.

[LethalWolfe]

Substitute boss with someone with access to your work.
If I'm an employee though it still doesn't change the fact that the company owns the IP. If someone else at the same company 'stole' my work I think the best I could do was complain to management (I don't think I'd have any legal recourse). If someone outside the company 'stole' my work then the company, not I, would go after them because it's the company's IP.



Lethal

[obeygiant]

http://i44.tinypic.com/24yv48y.jpghttp://i39.tinypic.com/xf52sh.jpg

Beijing residents, using busses and their bodies, had blocked a convoy of soldiers attempting to enter the city. This was the first appearance of lethal weapons on the streets and was a precursor of what was to come on June 4. I'm sure the reality of the picture is not relevant to the artist...but I find that disturbing.

Images stripped of their context but retaining strong emotional elements are hallmarks of fascist and Soviet propaganda styles - an acknowledged inspiration for this artist. In this case, I think a lack of accurate context for the image drains it of meaning. It's also dishonest.

I suggest that Mr Fairey credit those whos materials he uses to "inspire" him. The truth of things might help enhance the depth of how his work is perceived and actually make it more interesting to contemplate and not just cool to look at.salon.com (http://open.salon.com/blog/ed_nachtrieb/2009/05/20/shepard_fairey_ripped_off_my_picture_first)

Another one!

[decksnap]

I've seen enough. This guy's a douche.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I've seen enough. This guy's a douche.

There are two legal principles here, one is "fair use" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use 0 and derivative work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_works ). It is for the courts to decide IMO on whether his images violate these in the end...

With Obama Hope image I can see both sides... with the latest image I think he has a stronger case...

[crezo]

I work at a design studio and deal with this sort of stuff all the time.

If the image was used as REFERENCE and he simply looked at it and drew the image from there, they've got no chance at all. However if he did actually trace any of the elements of the photo then that's actually using the image itself. Generally with pictures of people you will be alright to base illustrations from them (unless the person in the image has copyrighted an aspect of their image which some very sad people do!). But if they can line up elements of the two overlayed you're shafted.

Should never have admitted it or they wouldn't have a case, there's so many images out there this could so easily have been avoided.

[decksnap]

There are two legal principles here, one is "fair use" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use 0 and derivative work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_works ). It is for the courts to decide IMO on whether his images violate these in the end...

With Obama Hope image I can see both sides... with the latest image I think he has a stronger case...

It doesn't really matter to me if it is technically illegal, I still think it's douchy, with respect to considering the guy a real artist, or respecting him at all. There are many more examples of this btw.

[jecapaga]

It doesn't really matter to me if it is technically illegal, I still think it's douchy, with respect to considering the guy a real artist, or respecting him at all. There are many more examples of this btw.

Not sure what you mean by 'real artist'. He openly admits to using and being inspired by other imagery and art. Many artists take on previous existing art and add their own spin on it..often adding in irony. To say that it then does not equal real art doesn't really equate with me. Defining what real art is can be a slippery slope. Andy Warhol would then not be considered a real artist based on your statements.

[decksnap]

Well I don't want to debate it because it is just my opinion, but so much of his work is just tracing something cool looking, then slapping his cheesy corporate branding on it. I've found better 'art' beneath my refrigerator.

[obeygiant]

Well I don't want to debate it because it is just my opinion, but so much of his work is just tracing something cool looking, then slapping his cheesy corporate branding on it. I've found better 'art' beneath my refrigerator.

You should check out the archives of Shep's work.

http://obeygiant.com/archives

http://obeygiant.com/images/2009/05/peace-bomber-black.jpg

The peace bomber is quite ironic. :)

[decksnap]

That would probably be a fun scavenger hunt to source all the photos he traced! :)

[jecapaga]

That would probably be a fun scavenger hunt to source all the photos he traced! :)

That's funny. I agree. He's not an 'artist' for everybody by any stretch.

[obeygiant]

NEW YORK — Artist Shepard Fairey, who designed the famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster, admitted Friday that he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally claimed his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization had claimed was his source.

Fairey, 39, said in a statement that he was wrong 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, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement.

"I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment and I take full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner."

Fairey had claimed he based his "HOPE" drawing on a photo of then-Sen. Barack Obama, seated next to actor George 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 — a picture seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption HOPE. The AP has long maintained that Fairey used the solo shot.

Attorneys for Fairey have withdrawn and, in papers filed Friday in federal court in Manhattan, stated 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 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.FOX NOOS (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568042,00.html)

Crazier and crazier.

or

Liar liar pants on fire! lol

[AP_piano295]

It doesn't really matter to me if it is technically illegal, I still think it's douchy, with respect to considering the guy a real artist, or respecting him at all. There are many more examples of this btw.

So in your view one piece of art cannot be the basis for a second piece of art?

[freeny]

So in your view one piece of art cannot be the basis for a second piece of art?

It really comes down to profiting. While Shepard claimes he never profited from the image, his status as an artist skyrocketed from the image and he ended up profiting indirectly. The AP has every right to do what they did. It was thier image he copied. If the AP was interested in "art" or if Shepard hadnt recieved so much notoriety, im sure the AP would have let it slide. But the AP is not about "art" but profit. And that is where the line was crossed.

In my own work I utilize popular objects that are copyright of others. I fully understand that i am allowed as an artist to create such images but i take the gamble knowing that if the intelectual property owner chooses, they can bar me from making any profit from it. For the most part they have been very cool about it and allow me a certain amount of freedom but draw a line where the art ends and the merchandise begins. I have one or two that have allowed me nothing and that is thier perogative and one must respect that.

[Macky-Mac]

I wonder what's happened with Mannie Garcia's claim....he's the photographer who took the picture. The last I remember he was asking to be allowed to intervene in the case.

He says he owns the copyright on the photo and not AP.

[Counterfit]

But the AP is not about "art" but profit. And that is where the line was crossed.

Actually, the AP is a not-for-profit co-op.

[freeny]

Actually, the AP is a not-for-profit co-op.

I stand corrected.

[AP_piano295]

It really comes down to profiting. While Shepard claimes he never profited from the image, his status as an artist skyrocketed from the image and he ended up profiting indirectly. The AP has every right to do what they did. It was thier image he copied. If the AP was interested in "art" or if Shepard hadnt recieved so much notoriety, im sure the AP would have let it slide. But the AP is not about "art" but profit. And that is where the line was crossed.

In my own work I utilize popular objects that are copyright of others. I fully understand that i am allowed as an artist to create such images but i take the gamble knowing that if the intelectual property owner chooses, they can bar me from making any profit from it. For the most part they have been very cool about it and allow me a certain amount of freedom but draw a line where the art ends and the merchandise begins. I have one or two that have allowed me nothing and that is thier perogative and one must respect that.

Idk know much about the legal side of the arguement. From what I understand the fair use clause basically says do whatever you want as long as you dont make money.

Though purely from a moral point of view I see nothing wrong in what the artist did. It is my view that if you alter a piece of art to this level of abstraction you have created a new and creative piece.

[obeygiant]

Though purely from a moral point of view I see nothing wrong in what the artist did. It is my view that if you alter a piece of art to this level of abstraction you have created a new and creative piece.

It actually happens more often than one would think in all types of art.

[LethalWolfe]

Idk know much about the legal side of the arguement. From what I understand the fair use clause basically says do whatever you want as long as you dont make money.
Fair Use, as defined by US copyright law, says nothing of the sort.


Lethal

[NT1440]

Fair Use, as defined by US copyright law, says nothing of the sort.


Lethal

Care to explain for those of us who don't know (myself included)?

[LethalWolfe]

Fair Use (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The only 'protected' uses under Fair Use in the US are basically education, news, and analysis & criticism. All other uses are not protected and are evaluated using the four pronged test.


Lethal

[Gelfin]

Commercial use is only partially relevant. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html) the SCOTUS found that commercial use was not necessarily incompatible with fair use defense. The ruling also examined the "transformative" nature of an unauthorized derivative work:

[t]he enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message.

Expect Fairey's defense, and in my inexpert opinion it is a fairly strong one, to rely heavily on the "transformative" nature of his work. It is clearly sufficiently distinct as to qualify as an original work, and the intent to imbue the image with "new expression, meaning, or message" is pretty monosyllabically transparent. It is trivial to observe that Fairey's work had a much broader cultural impact than the work from which it was derived, however unauthorized the derivation was, specifically because of the additional expression with which he imbued the image. Furthermore, far from damaging the commercial viability of the original image (a difficult claim to support, if AP are making it at all), if anything Fairey's use may have enhanced it.

Lawyers will find a way to argue this interminably, and no doubt AP's attorneys will invoke Fairey's ill-advised behavior as some sort of admission of guilt (although a perfectly plausible response might hold that Fairey's foolish behavior was based on lack of legal understanding of a perfectly valid affirmative defense), but ultimately I would be surprised if Fairey didn't come out on top.

[jecapaga]

Commercial use is only partially relevant. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html) the SCOTUS found that commercial use was not necessarily incompatible with fair use defense. The ruling also examined the "transformative" nature of an unauthorized derivative work:



Expect Fairey's defense, and in my inexpert opinion it is a fairly strong one, to rely heavily on the "transformative" nature of his work. It is clearly sufficiently distinct as to qualify as an original work, and the intent to imbue the image with "new expression, meaning, or message" is pretty monosyllabically transparent. It is trivial to observe that Fairey's work had a much broader cultural impact than the work from which it was derived, however unauthorized the derivation was, specifically because of the additional expression with which he imbued the image. Furthermore, far from damaging the commercial viability of the original image (a difficult claim to support, if AP are making it at all), if anything Fairey's use may have enhanced it.

Lawyers will find a way to argue this interminably, and no doubt AP's attorneys will invoke Fairey's ill-advised behavior as some sort of admission of guilt (although a perfectly plausible response might hold that Fairey's foolish behavior was based on lack of legal understanding of a perfectly valid affirmative defense), but ultimately I would be surprised if Fairey didn't come out on top.

No expert here but I think it is a transformative work, always have. I am curious if there is any defense in that much of what this artist produces is copped and re-interpretated for the msg he's trying to send? He lifts images regularly, it's just that this one has obviously gone of the richter scale, even residing in the Smithsonian as Obama's first artist representation.

[AP_piano295]

No expert here but I think it is a transformative work, always have. I am curious if there is any defense in that much of what this artist produces is copped and re-interpretated for the msg he's trying to send? He lifts images regularly, it's just that this one has obviously gone of the richter scale, even residing in the Smithsonian as Obama's first artist representation.

How does he steal anything? Is drawing a picture of a statue stealing the statue?

[jecapaga]

How does he steal anything? Is drawing a picture of a statue stealing the statue?

If you research, there is plenty on this subject of him borrowing/stealing. I'm a fan and have several of his prints and this one noted in the thread.

[obeygiant]

The Associated Press, Shepard Fairey, and Mr. Fairey’s companies Obey Giant Art, Inc., Obey Giant LLC, and Studio Number One, Inc., have agreed in principle to settle their pending copyright infringement lawsuit over rights in the Obama Hope poster and related merchandise.

Mr. Fairey used an AP portrait photograph of Mr. Obama in making the Hope poster. Mr. Fairey did not license the photograph from the AP before using it. The AP contended that Mr. Fairey copied all of the original, creative expression in the AP’s photograph without crediting or compensating the AP, and that Mr. Fairey’s unlicensed use of the photograph was not a fair use.. Mr. Fairey claimed that he did not appropriate any copyrightable material from the AP’s photo, and that, in any event, his use of the photograph constituted a fair use under copyright law.

In settling the lawsuit, the AP and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law. Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential.

“The Associated Press is pleased to have reached resolution of its lawsuit with Mr. Fairey,” said Tom Curley, president and CEO. “AP will continue to celebrate the outstanding work of its award-winning photographers and use revenue from the licensing of those photos to support its mission as the essential provider of news and photography from around the world. The AP will continue to vigilantly protect its copyrighted photographs against wholesale copying and commercialization where there is no legitimate basis for asserting fair use.”

“I am pleased to have resolved the dispute with the Associated Press,” said Mr. Fairey. “I respect the work of photographers, as well as recognize the need to preserve opportunities for other artists to make fair use of photographic images. I often collaborate with photographers in my work, and I look forward to working with photos provided by the AP’s talented photographers.”

The AP’s copyright infringement lawsuit against Obey Clothing, the marketer of apparel with the Hope image, remains ongoing.

posted January 12th, 2011 http://obeygiant.com/

Both sides agree that enough is enough.

[freeny]

Fin

BTW, Obeygiant, are you a Fairey fan?

[obeygiant]

Fin

BTW, Obeygiant, are you a Fairey fan?

Of course I am. I own most of his art books and a few prints.
Although when I chose my login name here Shep wasn't as famous as he is now.

you can call me og (oh-gee) :)

[freeny]

Of course I am. I own most of his art books and a few prints.
Although when I chose my login name here Shep wasn't as famous as he is now.

you can call me og (oh-gee) :)
I appreciate his experimentation.
Did a show or two with his work included.

[obeygiant]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2chpa1t.jpg

This poster represents my support for the Occupy movement, a grassroots movement spawned to stand up against corruption, imbalance of power, and failure of our democracy to represent and help average Americans. On the other hand, as flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to "a man on the inside" that we have presently. Obviously, just voting is not enough. We need to use all of our tools to help us achieve our goals and ideals. However, I think idealism and realism need to exist hand in hand. Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let's be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people. I'm still trying to work out copyright issues I may face with this image, but feel free to share it and stay tuned...

Shep's take on the OWS

[iJohnHenry]

Shep's take on the OWS

Nice resurrection. I approve. :D