AP to sue Shepard Fairey?!

Shepard Fairey Charges Dismissed in Boston
http://current.com/items/89967346/shepard_fairey_charges_dismissed_in_boston.htm

Maybe they are trying to get money from the wrong people here... if there is to sue anyone at all...

It would be the people that ran the campaign's responsibility to make sure that any images used are free and clear of copyright infringement.

Besides, the artist only got one thing, one BIG thing from doing the art. A reputation, and to be well known.

Shepard Fairey is awesome. Not only is his art cool, but his clothing line is great. He did it for no money, what the hell is the problem. OBEY

what a di*k move ...

this is the kind of stuff that going to happen with the commercialization of street art. keep it to the streets!

what a waste of time and money for everyone... obama probly has Fairey's back in this though

The poster is awesome - and there are distinct differences between the pic and the poster...

This is all good and well except Shepard Fairey is a plagiarist anyway...

Check out this link:

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

Nothing is original anymore, nothing is so sacred we can't take something from it and make our own interpretation. Stop acting like such whiny complaining pussies (those that claim copyright infringement and the such)... if your work is so fucking great no one that copies it is gonna make it better, and if someone wants to buy a knockoff of your work, their loss or yours for having your prices so high regular people can't afford it. All you cream pies need to get the fuck over it and be proud of your work and stop worrying about losing a few thousand bucks or even millions because when you die, you are shit food for worms. You don't take shit with you. Get the hell over it cry babies.

Isn't he suing someone? He was on 60 mins claiming fair use when he steals other peoples work.

lmao... they all want to make $$ off of the pic of HOPE~~ might be a clue to if there is any.

I'm entirely certain that the image has been altered by at least 25%. No contest.

what about warhol...
campbell's soup ring a bell?

leave him alone greedy AP

atypical pose. could be used by anyone making a portraiture.

And, now...

Obama Portrait Artist Shepard Fairey Arrested

http://current.com/items/89794760/obama_portrait_artist_shepard_fairey_arrested....

Congratulations Shepard Fairey for all of the free publicity the AP (Against Paintings) has given you. May your iconic image enjoy a post-election boost in sales.

AP takes an L here

This is a joke, right? Andy would turn over in his hot tub.

Lame!

Fairey earned popularity but not MONEY for this variation on the photo. I'm furious, but how does one go about boycotting the AP?

It's a toughie.

If I were in court and was asked after swearing on a bible If this drawing came from this picture, I could not positively confirm that beyond a reasonable doubt because this is "not" an exact likeness.

I believe that since the artist added his own perspectives, contrast, clothing colors, and
backgrounds that AP is foolish to have let
this ridiculous lawsuit get this far.

As a matter of fact, the drawing is powerful, moving, and has an independence all of its own, but the picture was done by someone who just stood there and pushed a camera into the President's face, this could've been one of a million pictures shown once in a newspaper.

Finally, I think that they should be proud that their picture helped to "inspire" this artist to create his vision.

I did some thinking and went to the AP website. It mentions this lawsuit in the top right column, I wrote the following to Paul Colford, Media Director,

Dear Paul Colford,
So the only basis for your case is that Shepard Fairey 'acknowledged' that the poster is "based" on the photograph.
Well, then I would have to say that your photographer has given you the wrong photograph!
Show me the picture with President Obama wearing red, white and blue face paint, with his head slanted at 110 degrees not 119, show me the picture where the barber didn't nick him in the top left of his forehead a little too much, show me the picture whereas the President had on an orange Ronald McDonald tie, show me the picture where there is no flag but the President simply blends into the background. Show me the one with the exact expression of accomplishment and power to inspire change. (The expression in the picture looks to be after a hard day on the campaign trail) Then, I would reconsider.
To go after Fairey for this would be like scouting every refrigerator in america where kids have drawn pictures of President Obama as an assignment from photographs in the papers or a magazine.
Would you sue a child Paul?
Just be happy that he did you an honorable mention by acknowledging that the drawing was "based" on an AP photo, because his work is genuine, original, and moving and did not generate him revenue, Your photograph is textbook, historical, candid and it doesn't INSPIRE me the way Fairey's has to have written this letter, nor can your photograph claim to have inspired a nation.
Since those 'inspirations' are not present in your photograph, you are morally obligated to see the clearer path.
Thank you for your time,

AP must have either no conscience or no morality. Either way, they loose!

Even if he DID make money (which he has not), it's been hosted in art galleries, qualifying it as art, which is all but exempt from copyright laws!

under the artist copyright rules AP has no grounds to sue.
I know this as an illustrator that, If an image has been altered more then %10 to %25 then they can not claim copyright. (this percentage thing is real, i am not making this shit up. and who decides that percentage is the iffy problem with these kind of copyright problems)
but in this picture the photo has been used as a reference so in this it is a almost completely different image.
If this was the case a lot of the artists and illustrators wont be able to do any work at all because they use reference photographs.

Fairey has nothing to worry about.

Question:

Would AP be so anxious to litigate if Obama in turn sued AP for seeking to profit from his likeness by suing an artist who asked and got nothing for his painting of Obama?

For publishing Fairey's art, Fairey and Obama both could sue AP for seeking to profit by copyright infringement of Obama's image and Fairey's art.

If AP's intention was to make enemies, disparage themselves, look greedy and ridiculous - it's hard to imagine a faster way to do it.

great post Tori.
sounds like AP will crash and burn on this, if this site is any indication

Of course, their lawsuit has no leg to stand on. Props to Shepard Fairey for both making a great poster and sticking it to the Associated Pricks (Fair Use, bitches!).

greedy bastards. both are doing things wrong

It would take me 5min to find 10 pictures in which Obama is holding that same pose.

Who cares...Fairey is just another sheep who jumped on the Obama hype train and helped turn him into some kind of cross between JFK and MLK...just because he can "talk" and "promise"...isn't that the strategy of every wannabe ruler of the world? Enough of this support him all they way crap...KEEP AN EYE ON HIM TO SEE IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT.

sh** ton!!

Wow, are they bored or something?

Don't they have some spinning to do?

Did Campbell sue Andy Warhol for the picture of the cans? This is just silly... C'mon now.

one could argue that it seems like a typical pose.

So wait, does that mean Obama gets to sue everyone who has used him image on anything?

Well maybe Obama could sue AP for making money off of a picture they took of him.

I am not that shocked or really upset by this. I am pro-civil rights. It seems to me that if a corporation took some little guy's thing, you would all be up in arms about individual rights. Its the same thing, so try to be consistent.

Additionally, if you are a public figure, your image can be used freely. This isn't a secret. If this article is correct and all the proceeds went to the Obama campaign, then the AP was indirectly sponsoring the Obama campaign. That means you who complained about them doing this and not covering the "good fight" around the world is also dumb. They can't possibly endorse one campaign and try to keep an image of impartiality, remember this isn't Fox News. They try to sell stories to everyone and having an obvious bias like that would hurt.

Plus, this guy isn't exactly hurting for money. He started the "Obey" giant and this. He's got tons of stuff going on. I say look at what is actually going on then say something. It could easily be that they are suing solely for the formal recognition and to show they didn't intent to endorse Obama. As I recall he started this as a smaller project then it kept building and building. At any time he could have asked the AP for permission.

If someone used my pic and it blew up like this, I'd assert my civil rights.

He didn't make any money so I guess they're trying to prove a point. What that point is, not really sure.

The AP's simply sharing in the spotlight. They want people to know what role they played in creating one of the most memorable images of the campaign. It's a publicity stunt; and it's easily paid for. Kudos to the AP for what is likely to be considered the most memorable dick move of '09.

We the people have relinquished our rights to everything by falling in line for brands like AP, UPI, Reuters, et al.
The Associated Press and the United Press International and now a zillion other news reporting agencies own NOTHING.
Where were their news stories on the meltdown? Where was their freaking psychic vision and on the spot reporting when the country was being robbed, raped, pillaged and looted?? Yeah, go after some artist person who sold some shirts and pins.
I look to the day when we truly stand up to these giants of nothing. GIANTS OF HOLLOW NOTHING. There, I coined something. GIANTS OF HOLLOW NOTHING.

That's really going to get the homeless off the streets. Or the air cleaned up. That will really help human rights abuses. BIG MEN BIG WOMEN...big important..BIG PEOPLE...big important Giants of Hollow Nothing who sue artists.
I guess they're feeling the pinch so they're seeing who they can take down. The newspapers, to whom they sold their goods are going out of business. Nobody really needs you anymore AP. And, it is this kind of behavior that nails you further into the ground.

There is no more newsroom with ticker tape. You fired all the writers and the journalists. You traded them in for online sales of stuff. You will go the way of the clothespin and the dial up phone. Something to be explained in a history paper in the next couple of decades. Obsolescence causes desperation.

Wow, the AP is so out of it to do this! Bad press + no money = colossal waste of time.

Another Greedy corporation doing what they do. Go for the Juglar and get the money. I guess they need to sue the Obama campaign fund war chest.

I wonder how much AP paid Obama for the picture?

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.....

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

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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 ....

AP has no HOPE.

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.

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*.

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.

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"

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"...

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

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!

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!

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

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!

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?

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

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