There are times, of course, when lying in court would be morally required.  As you say, this was definitely not one of those times.

None of which has much to do with the fact that he got busted for lying in court. That’s a big no-no any way you slice it.

Last & final comment: I find it remarkable, as a liberal, looking at the opinions here, from other liberals (I think), who diverge so strongly from a theme, when it involves the word “artist”.

The AP photographer’s photo is the infrastructure, it is a bridge to a final product. Say the shipping corporation has a nice fleet of trucks, but without a bridge, they travel no where. Without the first image, there would be no hope poster. I wouldn’t care if he used the first image, but he should have credited the first work. He didn’t make his art on his own. It’s like saying, because the shipping company put flags on the bridge, that they built it; they didn’t, and then arguing that now they shouldn’t have to pay taxes to keep the infrastructure whole.

How does “who cares?” do ya?

They would have had just as much trouble selling it as Theo did. Duh. Try to remember that The Beatles’ “Revolution #9″ did not reach the Top 40.

Furthermore, the “art requires suffering” thing is a hoax long disproven.

And yes you do have a problem with appropriation when you focus too much on the word “appropriate.”

Really, though, you’re drifting awfully close to the whole “jazz is degenerate” thing.

You can’t expect protection from others, the law doesn’t really protect the AP, the AP protects the AP. And if you come toe to toe with the AP, even if you’re work is legitimately yours, it really boils down to who has the most money/power.

I.P. laws only benefit those who can afford to enforce them for their own purposes.

The real work is in becoming the more know artist for any given idea. Then everyone knows who’s idea it was. Society and economy are cooperative efforts.

Even at that, owning imagery, writings, concepts and what have you can really begin to limit the creative freedom of others.

I.P. is just a way to sit back and rest on your laurels, hoping that life will require no further effort of you.

If you were famous but poor you’d be having a hell of a time protecting your work, though I understand that the two in combination can be hard to imagine in a world where you can “own” ideas. The AP thinks it’s happy about spending it’s dough and using it’s power to hold on to these works, but that’s only because they don’t see the potential of the other option and aren’t structured to embrace it. So artists actually suffer and will suffer more and more from limits.

Try to take your work to the big time, you’ll be walking on egg shells more and more as your work gets known, you’d better believe it.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll be busy patenting a dance move! :P

For the record, I appropriated the above from a comment on the Wells Fargo post. Note that Pescovitz’s post fails to mention neither the 1.6 million dollars Fairey paid AP to settle, nor the 25 thousand dollar fine he is required to pay as part of his sentence. Other articles note that prosecutors were seeking jail time, since the charge in question merited up to six months of prison, which didn’t happen.

Business as usual.

Editing to add: Yes, I sound like a bit of a dick, but my point is that there needs to be some protections for the unknown little people who operate outside of the corporate overlords. It’s good that you make enough money in your work or that you are okay with sacrificing what you created for your company. Maybe you don’t consider your creations art. But think about this. What if someone copied Starry Night in the 1800′s, after seeing Vincent’s painting. If someone in another county who was his contemporary did the exact painting, with texture and composition and content, except that he tilted the frame, blocked the outlines further, and changed the color. Would you go back in time and cancel van Gogh’s rights or credit of that original piece because you fancied some of the other artist’s copy better? Remember; he was not really popular in his own day.

What the artist did was take an EXACT copy of the photograph with no credit and no permission and with no offer for compensation, he used it to sell posters. Without the AP photo, there would be no Hope poster. He selected the image based on the exact expression that someone else captured.

I have not had a “respected” artist steal my work, but there have been instances where people have  tried to use my work to sell themselves or otherwise make money from my work. How is that okay? And what is so difficult about respecting someone else’s work,  asking permission or paying a use fee?

Signed,
Guide UI

I assume you wouldn’t care if I used your name now.