Those that don’t believe in copyright can rail against the system, but your feelings will not make the work any less reliant on the work of another creator.

No, it wasn’t nailed down, but it isn’t free.

http://blog.ideeinc.com/2009/01/23/will-the-real-obama-hope-photograph-stand-up/

Scroll down the page and mouse over the headshots to toggle quickly between the two images.

As I have learned the hard way..alot of commenters here at BB are very pro-tagger/vandalism and will rally against anyone who speaks ill against it. It’s kind of sad.

And really is it ART? I say it’s design. There is a difference.

Isn’t that how Hollywood’s creative accounting works? “yeah, it took in $150 million at the box office, but after expenses, we got doodley squat. So, no — we’re not paying you for the use of your novel, Mr. King: we didn’t make any money.”

It is awesome that it was based on the work of another creator. Everything is – all the way down. And, as a consequence, he created something good. As close as art can come to being empirically validated as good – since it was “selected” entirely by the grassroots and up-promoted entirely by its actual success.

I think that folks who get caught up in questions of ownership, control, derivative, etc. have lost sight of meaning – the “why” we do this at all.

Contrary to your assertion, architects can (usually) require that their photographed buildings be credited or that photographers receive permission before publishing photographs of the building.

As one in the architectural profession, I kind of understand why that is, but at the same time, as asserted before by others, no one would have realized the Fairey image came from the photo because it was altered/cropped, just as a significantly altered image of, say, the Guggenheim Bilbao might not be recognizable as such.

Is he a hack: yes.

He’s never been so much a political artist as he is a commercial artist who turns meaningful political art and imagery into his own p.r. machine.

He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Actually, he wants two cakes, one that he can eat and one that he can throw at the baker who gave it to him.

There is a huge differance between reproducing the original and producing something new and entirely differant based on the original.

He probably should have asked the photographer or whatever, but that’s common courtesy, not a legal requirement.

Like any fifth grade teacher will tell you, you can avoid plagiarism just by naming the source.

@ Davin #4 & Phikus #7:

Actually I clicked to comment to say essentially what BdgBill #1 said. Mr. Fairey does certainly seem to think that he had a very major role in getting Obama elected:

I created the Obama image as a grassroots tool solely to help Obama get elected president… If I could do it all over again, I would not change anything about the process, because that could change the outcome. I am glad to endure legal headaches if that is the trade-off for Obama being president.

That ism “if I had worried about the legal headaches, that might have changed the outcome, and Obama might not have been elected president. As it is, I’m happy to bare the consequences of my sacrifice, now that I got Obama elected”

… or at least that’s how he makes it sound…

Der.

Practically EVERYTHING you ever see or use is “referenced” from something.

Who ever is suing Fairey needs to get a life, and stop wasting his time and ours. Fairey’s poster doesn’t look like ANY photograph in existence cause cameras have yet to implement a “live trace” tool. Until then, stop being a car salesman trying to judge art.

Fairey’s illustration is an original work of art, and it was compelling enough to become an iconic image for the campaign and Obama supporters. That iconic status alone attests to Fairey’s creativity and his ability to create a powerful image based partly on a mundane new photo.

If any of the “paint by numbers” cynics think they can create an iconic image that has this much cultural impact, I challenge them to put up or shut up. Andy Warhol’s soup cans or Marilyn Monroe posters are also based on mundane source material. Distilling the essence of an idea isn’t easy. Creating a cultural icon isn’t something you can do by formula.

He is a hack who rips off other peoples art to make money and promote himself.

In fact he has made a career out of stealing other artists work and claiming it as his own.

And if that were not bad enough, he is a hypocrite who sent his lawyers after another artist who heavily modified one of his images.

So when you read quotes from him like this:

“Most importantly, I am fighting the AP to protect the rights of all artists, especially those with a desire to make art with social commentary.”

you really just have to wonder.

The whole story is here

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

He as an artist did some art.

That’s all he did, the important bit was it was really GOOD art, and he made it public and took no money for it.

And also he is not a graffiti artist nor a tagger.

He makes posters.

The AP and the snapper are suing because they thought they could make some fat money.

Now they are locked into this ridiculous lawsuit so they look they are doing it for the principle of the thing rather than just being grasping shit heels who are out of luck.

So, no case no money no dignity.

great work AP.

When I was editing a newsletter for a non-profit, and wanted to re-print an article or photo or cartoon, I always tried to contact the writer, photographer or cartoonist (or his/her syndicator) to get permission to re-print. Sometimes it was a pain in the ass, and some syndicates wanted outrageous re-print fees of hundreds of dollars for comic strips or cartoons, so I simply didn’t use them. I had much better luck contacing artists directly, and if they wanted payment, it was usually very reasonable (anywhere from $20 to $50 per cartoon). I loved corresponding with geniuses like Bob Thaves (Frank and Ernest), Joe Martin (Mr. Boffo) and the incredible Tom Tomorrow (This Modern World), all of whom either asked for nothing in return but printed credit, or a fee that I could easily pay out of pocket. And I knew the money went directly to the artist, with no middle-man in between skimming off a fee.

Really, Shepard, it’s not hard at all, and could have saved you lots of grief in the long run. Then again, if the general rules of courtesy had been followed, none of this would have happened and we’d have nothing to bitch about, right?

you misunderstand. We’re anti-whiny-ass-titty-baby.

Check out the page done by the TineEye people. It’s obvious that he traced it.

@#23
“In my introductory oil-painting class our teacher stated from the get-go that if you used someone else’s photo as a reference that you had an obligation to credit that person.”

Yep, especially when you are straight up tracing a photo. Artistic license is one thing, but they are virtually identical, with very minimal stylization.

@#25
“fairey made NO MONEY on this piece!”

Ha. If you believe that, I have a great investment opportunity for you!

I’ve enjoyed his work for a long time, and hope to see him successfully defend his position. Given precedent — particularly the two Koons’ cases — the outcome should be illuminating as to the scope of fair use.