AP to sue Shepard Fairey?!

He is the official artist of the United States of America.

I have to admit, I love that poster.
AP's not winning me over with this move...

I have a business degree, not a law degree. So maybe I am missing something here.

But it seems to me, that suing someone for something they made no money off of and that didn't actually cost me anything would be...a costly waste of time?

Any lawyers want to elucidate me?

He is tew cute to sue, even Shepard's smile is very worthwhile.

Call those greedy mofos at AP @ 212.621.1500 & tell them how much dey suck!

it's a drawing, a highly stylized and considerably altered version of the photo - nothing illegal here.

AP is retarded, he altered the image enough that he legally cannot be charged with copyright infringement.

Besides as others have mentioned, he did not profit from this poster....so yeah...have fun with that AP!

Ridiculous, Shepard Fairey didn't even make any MONEY from the art! AP should back off, they have nothing to gain by this and a lot of respect and readers to lose!

i like how the article is run by the associated press. lame.

Sometimes copyright infringement is just a stupid piece of shit. There's some things that shouldn't be copyrighted.

People copyright everything nowadays. Soon I'll have to pay royalties for using the word "the"...

if he used their image in the design then he owes them money, but I don't see the photo at all. The fact that he created an illustration that is not an exact copy of the photo puts him in the clear.

In addition, if every photographer came after a graphic designer for basing designs off their photo (not using the actual photo, but using its contouring lines for illustrations and graphics) then photographers would be making, as the article says, "sh*t tons of money"

If he was a struggling artist they wouldn't care! He has money...they want some! The original picture would never have gotten exposure without his rendition anyway.

what a d**k move. of all organizations, the AP should definately be fully aware the rights and regulations. what a way to check your facts before you declare any wrong doing. all is fair in the love of politics... *pun intended*.

Oh, the irony, to sue the guy who became the most famous graphic artist in America by sharing his work for free.

AND in fact created this image out of passion, rather than monetary gain.

They ought to be honoured their image was chosen to become the most famous political poster in history.

Instead, they prefer to bathe in the sewers of mankind's lower aspirations.

AP has no HOPE.

sk8bs55 is right , Great Art was made of an average photo , be thankful ... I think they are jealous of his fame , because he made no money ... Have a little dignity guys ....

Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's the principle of the thing. AP cannot pick and choose which of its copyrighted works it wants to defend. Failing to defend one -- even when the "pirate" doesn't profit -- makes it harder to go after someone else when they really do rip off someone's work and profit.

Lawsuits like this are typically settled for little or no damages, just a credit for the copyright owner.

It sucks for everyone involved. The only people who profit from them are the lawyers.

AP is pretty protective of their products, the thing is everything they provide can be copied as soon as it's released

i mean they're a news company that supplies other news companies with news. how can you really protect a story? plus pictures are reprinted very easily as well (that's why photos on their site are quite small)

That's why they have a huge copyright department to protect their work.. they might not really have a beef with this dude, but they're sending a message out to other people that one infringes on their work with care

Well, isn't the AP photo a rendering of Obama's likeness? I doubt they compensated him for producing something based on what Obama owns (namely, his image).

AP can't win in this - they will loose much respect and readership.

I have a zillion pictures on my camera that were taken of Obama of pictures of Obama. If I paint a picture based on a picture that I took of a picture--whose picture is it? That's why I stick with the MONA LISA... ..
.BY THE WAY: URGENT READ in my opinion

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/youtubes-january-fair-use-massacre

In the meantime keep an eye on others like Warner Communications who now are removing kids singing Winter Wonderland from You Tube. Wonder what it will have to do with Current's posts now. This could effect the entire site.

URGENT READ. I don't see it on Current and I think it's VERY big news. Too lazy to write an article.
Here is the link again. It has an article and video.
More while we slept.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/youtubes-january-fair-use-massacre

So he didn't make any cash off it, He openly admits who deserves the photographic credit....hmm....so AP wants to sue an artist out of his home and grocery money?

Yeah, that's not a dick move at all. Great work AP!!!

When will people realize that there is no more ownership. There is one music collection, one film collection, and one photo album. The walls are in our imagination.

If he didn't make any money what's the problem. And he did it under fair use laws.

I suppose the brass at AP really wanted Palin and McCain in office and this is a temper tantrum.

After reading the article (an AP article no less) Shepard sounds like a selfless amazing guy and AP sounds like a bloodthirsty Corporate Giant who is out to destroy a small street artist.

Really, I fucking hate AP now.....

I wonder how much AP paid Obama for the picture?