In the case of Fairey’s work (I don’t care if he settled with the money-hungry fucks at AP – he just wanted to get on with life) the recontexturalisation is in the fact that, as metioned in the article, the original reference photograph was inconsequential to the message of his artwork. It was a picture of Clooney FFS! Obama just happened to be in the backdrop.

In the case of the above-mentioned Banksy use of the pulp fiction imagery, his use is clearly unproblematic as Banksy not only changed the most metaphorically charged item depicted – the handguns – into one of the most comical items he possible could. Furthermore, Banksy went back and updated the original piece at least once, showing that he clearly isn’t super-precious about the imagery itself but merely using it as a vehicle to convey a message.

Just look at this awesome link!

If Guetta wanted to play it safe he could’ve gone for something which is hard to argue competes with the original work like this:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9422/runoas.jpg

Culturally, we tend to favor expression over reception. Male over female.

Apparently I know very abnormal women.

I think people are bored of painting and are now doing some performance that explores how the context machine works.

Also, wow, artists sure sue a lot of artists in the US.

Now in this case, I would say that Glen Friedman has a case due to the size, scope and uncreative use (not fair-use) of the images everywhere. But the past picture where there’s that older couple on a Sepia-ish tone with Jam Master Jay removed? That image in and of itself is the only piece that could have a fair-use argument.

I’m no expert, but to my Philistine eye I’d have to agree that image is the only one that seems even mildly “transformative.”

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

If the Fairey/AP case made it to court, the Koons decision is probably what would have guided the trail.

Sometimes my subtle internet humor meter is broken, and I think this is one of those times. I hope.

I don’t know of any lawsuits explicitly surrounding Obey Giant, but you do realize that the artist involved was one Shepard Fairey, right?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thenerd/332243824/

As an artist who has spent a large part of her life learning to hold a very personal mirror up to the world, the fact that this sort of work is taken seriously as something worth paying a lot of money for makes me very, very sad. There is little invention in it and only the most basic level of craft.

You want judges to decide who made what iconic? Please. Are you saying that what Guetta did is stealing, but Fairey did isn’t because of the recognizability of the source image to the original artist. That’s some shaky-ass shit.

Isn’t re-purposing something iconic more effective than a random image, anyway? If something doesn’t have context, does re-purposing do anything? Girl Talk is successful when Biggie and Elton are dueting, otherwise it isn’t so special.

This is like those early 90s/late 80s sampling trials. How recognizable is it? How much has changed? Bull. It’s either Fair Use, or it isn’t. Either we have Fair Use, or we don’t. We should have Fair Use. Long before art was actively recorded and disseminated, people built on the ideas of those who came before them, sometimes in very literal ways.

This seems to be more a case of not liking the re-purposing, because it’s not “art”. If Negativland had used this “icon” on an album cover, would we be having this discussion?

There’s also some important context left out of this article. Fairey admitted to destroying and faking evidence in the dispute with AP, and may have committed perjury.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/ap-claims-shepard-fairey_n_324482.html

This isn’t to mention Fairey’s long history of engaging in “referencing” that is nearly identical to Guetta’s. Here’s just a small sampling of instances.

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

http://www.justseeds.org/blog/2007/12/a_response_to_obey_plagiarist_1.html

http://www.brghtnghts.com/blog/?page_id=46

I’m not gonna weigh in on the the merits of a Fair Use argument in either Guetta’s or Fairey’s case (I’ve got my own fair use spoofs on my website), but I think the distinction Bonner is trying to draw here doesn’t convince.

right, because he traced the outlines in the photo. There is simply no other explanation. Any “original” creative expression Fairey added was entirely dependent on the original photo.

Whether he did it by hand or used Illustrator or GIMP or whatever doesn’t matter.

I think this is fair use, and to say that it does not is directly going to erode fair use defenses further than they already are.

If the photographer wins, it’s bad for other ‘street’ artists who make ‘better’ or more meaningful art that plays with iconic images.

If he loses, it’s bad for those who have created the iconic pictures that are fodder for today’s artists.

Mimicry, copying, appropriation is a beautiful and basic human behavior. Much of behavior and much of learning is a blend of mimicry and uniqueness. In some sense mimicry/copy/appropriation lead to deep understanding, to connection, community, and paradoxically can lead to personal identity.

Reception and Expression are a yin yang thing. To mimic can be a a deep way to receive.

Culturally, we tend to favor expression over reception. Male over female.

Some bristle at the notion of limitations on copying behavior– the deep sense of understanding and connection that can come out of appropriation is beautiful, and can, paradoxically, lead to more profound unique expression.

So, metaphorically, when strong cultural voices commit to positions limiting said behavior, the animal mimicry side of the self wants to tell those limiters to fuck off.

Do dos rappas own the words dey trash?

Honey if you say “no” you screwed.

Fairey paid up. And granted AP royalties going forward on any sales. So… seems like not such a fair use after all.

Fairey can continue to claim fair use all he wants. The AP press release makes it pretty clear Fairey is the one who had to give ground here:

“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.”

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_01122011a.html

That’s either revenue-sharing on future sales, or a grantback so AP can profit by selling its own versions of hope. But it also sounds like he’s agreed to take more licenses from them in the future. You think those will be fair use too? I think “asking permission and getting a license in advance” is a relatively novel way for Mr. Fairey to choose his subjects.

If he really believed he had a fair-use defense, why would he agree to give AP rights or pay them royalties?

He traced the photo, Sean. Line for line. He admitted it. But it’s always been obvious- I mean, I put an animated GIF together in 2008 to demonstrate that he didn’t change a line:

(can I post images here? I’ll try and then add a link).

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2707/fadetofairey.gif

http://themarilynmonroecollection.blogspot.com/2009/03/original-monroe-image-sells-at-auction.html