dagblog - Comments for "Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image"

A solid grounding in

JNagarya — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:40:50 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

A solid grounding in copyright law, beginning with knowing what the statutes actually say, is a prerequisite to intelligent discussion of the matter.

That includes adhearance to the statutory -- not the Internet -- definition of "fair use".

And NEVER trust those who believe "information should be free" for truthful statement of the ACTUAL law.

And NEVER let them near YOUR copyrights, unless you want them "freed" for the for-profit use by others, beginning with those who argue that (OTHERS' THAN TEHIR) information should be free.

Fairy's image is wildly

kevbo — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:00:57 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

Fairy's image is wildly popular.

AP's image has scarcely made them a dime.

On this basis alone, they are quite distinct.

This is an interesting

CrazyAte — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:04:12 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

This is an interesting situation and I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

I support, to a broad extent, copyright laws and the need to protect artist's original works, other intellectual properties, etc.; however, I see this situation as very different in that we're talking about a public official and I can't get this out of my mind--My understanding is that the original photo was taken while Obama, as an elected official, was conducting the people's business during an official proceeding. So who, in fact, does the image belong to?

If I had to settle on any one person, organization or collective body, it would be the citizens.

Going further and as a hypothetical, what if the photo was taken during an official proceeding where the exact same image/pose was also videotaped, either by another news agency or a government employee? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming the same image or an extremely similiar image could be obtained using a frame by frame isolation of video. Then, who would own it? But I digress, I'm probably being as clear as mud here...

In any case, post rec'd and I agree the AP's actions and the claim on the image is petty and I hope they lose.

And it appears that the AP

Matthew Saroff — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:47:02 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

And it appears that the AP Does not own the image.

The stringer who snapped the pic never signed a contract.

Not to burst your bubble, but

rumpole — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:06:22 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

Not to burst your bubble, but there are two Koons cases. Koons won the second one on precisely the kind of argument that you're making--that street art has its own language of appropriation, which changes the message of the underlying work. He (or the much maligned-suits) learned their lessons, in other words.

I hate to disagree with many

JoshQuasimoto — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:44:23 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

I hate to disagree with many of you but I see your point about the AP photographer and fair use. That said, I personally think the Koons case was BS, but the little guy in this case came up against Jeff Koons who is a known appropriator. He's been sued multiple times for his work. Fairey considers himself a street artist and in general has followed what many of the street artist follow. Appropriation of other sources is an essential aspect of street art. Collage is also something that has been prosecuted in the past for copyright issues. When you guys discuss these topics I hope all of you realize that those that decide these cases for the most part have no debt to the art scene whatsoever. They are merely legal minds arguing a case, so it seems rather funny to have a bunch of intellectual legal suits debate the merit of appropriate appropriation. Fairey career was started by his appropriation of an Andre the Giant images with the letters OBEY underneath. Basquiat left his mark throughout New York and is essentially how he met Warhol crowd. All artist borrow, it is just a matter between what is stealing and what is appropriation. The entire Rap and Hip-Hop scene was started by turning different aspects of copyright material into something new. Whether you agree or disagree, what Fairey did was make a much more unique image out of a simple found image of our current POTUS. Bringing a lawsuit against him seems strange considering they just hung the piece in the Smithsonian.

Long live street art!

Is that really what he did?

rumpole — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:21:31 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

Is that really what he did? Just color it in? Or re-draw it somewhat (I have to say, the angles look slightly different to me. One of the big issues in this case is going to be the elements of the photograph that are, in fact, "original," and how the picture was taken and composed. That will be an interesting deposition, particularly because often with digital cameras several frames are shot over the space of a couple of seconds. The author is only protected insofar as his authorship.

The reason that the above matters is because fair use is a defense to infringement, which by definition is the copying of original expression. The less taken, the better the defense. And that's before getting to the transformative use issue. Given the way a lot of these cases have come out, I can really see both sides of this one. There will be no injunction (or there shouldn't be) because of the rather unique nature of the derivative work. Damages is a different story. It's a close case.

And if that were true, there

rumpole — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:16:00 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

And if that were true, there woudl be no windows, mac os, word, or any other software program. Attracting capital to collaborative projects would be extremely difficult.

Fairey is definitely in the

Karl the Marxist — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:56:27 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

Fairey is definitely in the wrong here.

He made a derivative work and not only distributed but sold it, without attribution to make matters worse (I was not actually aware it was not original art myself.) Whether he did so for personal profit is by and large irrelevant.

We can be of many minds about the current state of copyright enforcement, licensing, royalties, corporate holdings, right of modification, intellectual property, software patents and so on*, but I think it is unequivocally inexcusable to not attribute the original work/artist.

* As you might guess, I am not a big fan.

1. This isn't about a

readytoblowagasket — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:36:52 +0000

In reply to Scummy AP sues Fairey for "copyright infringement" over HOPE poster image

1. This isn't about a photograph Fairey didn't use, it's about one he admits to using.

2. He didn't use the photograph as a "reference," he appropriated the image in its entirety. It's up to a judge to determine whether the new work is an infringement or fair use. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way the law works.

3. This case isn't about a 20-year-old image or one in the public domain where the copyright has lapsed. No need to go there.

4. How do you know the WSJ doesn't get permission first?

5. Rules for literature/poetry/song lyrics/scripts have different specifications, based on the length of the original work. Three words aren't copyrightable.

Here's some advice: When in doubt, at least make an effort (preferably documentable) to get permission.