(Shepard Fairey) admits using other photo for 'Hope' poster

Source: Associated Press

The artist who designed the famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster has admitted he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally said his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source.

Shepard Fairey, a Los Angeles-based street artist with a long, often proud history of breaking rules, said in a statement Friday that he was wrong about which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error. It was not immediately clear whether he would drop his lawsuit against the AP over the use of the photo.

"In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images," said Fairey, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement. "I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone."

Fairey, 39, had claimed he based his "HOPE" drawing on a photo of then-Sen. Obama seated next to actor George Clooney. The photo was taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia, on assignment for the AP, at the National Press Club in Washington.

Fairey now says he started with a solo photograph of Obama — taken at the same event, by the same photographer — a picture seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption HOPE. The AP has long maintained that Fairey used the solo shot.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/16/national/a191731D07.DTL&tsp=1

Knowingly submitting false pleadings in Federal Court? Rule 11?

IMO, the real crooks in this story are those people who rushed to defend him against the charges, using the argument of "derivative works." They are no friends to artists.

What a jerk.

And he counter-sued in the attempt make it too expensive for them to follow through.

and he knew he was wrong. He litigated in return, knowing they were right. They sued me first is not a mitigating factor here.

If you'd like some entertainment, do an advanced DU search on 'fairey' for posts from 1/09-2/20/09 to find the original threads.

Source: ap

NEW YORK – Shepard Fairey's claim that he had the right to use a news photo to create his famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster became a widely watched court case about fair use that now appears to have nearly collapsed.
...
Fairey himself admitted that he didn't use The Associated Press photo of Obama seated next to actor George Clooney he originally said his work was based on — which he claimed would have been covered under "fair use," the legal claim that copyrighted work can be used without having to pay for it.

Instead he used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source — a solo picture of the future president seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption "HOPE." Fairey said that he tried to cover up his error by submitting false images and deleting others.

The distinction is critical because fair use can sometimes be determined by how much of an original image or work was altered in the creation of a new work. If Fairey didn't need to significantly alter the image he used — in this case the solo shot of Obama — then his claim could have been undermined. Fair use cases also may consider the market value of the copyrighted material and the intended use of the newly created work.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_on_en_ot/us_ap_poster_artist

i hope he gets SLAMMED by the courts- he deserves it.

um, that's how most artists make likenesses of famouns people, by looking at photos of them.

this is a weird case, IMHO.

Or are they saying he used the photo itself without drawing from it?

I find myself thinking that if they rule against this guy we may all come to regret it. Consider all the fun we had with shrub photos in the past. Could come back and haunt some people.

so much so it would be hard to distinguish between the artwork and a photoshopped photo.

:shrug:

I think this is a dangerous precedent because it would mean artists would have to provide a chain of evidence for everything they produced.

And if you produced a popular painting from one of those photos, you'd hear from the shooter.

I've been a successful artist for over 20 years, winning dozens of international, national and regional awards.

Until last december, though.

are you trashing me for being unemployed? what is your deal?

Unless you've been winning awards by closely replicating photographers' works? If so, do the people who hand you awards know this?

welcome to my ignore list.

and no, that is not what I won awards for

can you be any more judgemental and condescending of someone you don't know?

Most smirk images used are just floating around the Internet.

Put it on a t-shirt and make a few bucks, there is a tiny chance that you will receive a cease and desist.

Make it world famous and you may find yourself in this artist's position.

it to a few friends via e-mail. It went from there but he didn't have any more to do with it than that. IIRC that is.

Most of those would have had at least a case for claiming an exemption as parody. There was no parody in this case.

He's not using the photo directly, he's interpreting it. Why he lied, I have no idea, but he should have stood by his right as an artist and designer to take an image of a public figure and interpret it as he saw fit.



I suppose the AP should be held accountable for the fact that they stole Obama's soul by taking his picture.

That why Jeff Koons was successfully sued when he took somebody else's drawing and tried to cash in on his own reputation by turning it into a sculpture. It's why you can't take someone's novel and turn it into a book-on-tape and pocket the profits, claiming you own the rights because it's in a new format or read in your own voice.

What he should have done was use a photo that was already in the public domain, or gone to an event where Obama was present and taken his own photo.

It's likely you'd see it the same way if you wrote a great screen play - and were told you weren't entitled to any profit from it because whoever acted in it was "interpreting it" in their own way.

You'd see it as a good law if you wrote an original song - and someone else stole it and made a ton of money off it - because they sang it in a different key or with slightly different orchestration, or just because their voice is considered their own interpretation.

The copyright applies regardless of the format of the work of art (whether you wrote it on paper and someone performs it in a life performance). Changing media doesn't negate the copyright. The law is in place to protect the rights of the original creator of a piece of art.

What he should have done was take his own photo (not all that hard, I have my own photos of Kerry, Edwards, and my governor). Or he could have contacted the photographer and requested to use the photo or purchase rights to it. Or he could have contacted the campaign directly and requested a similar photo that they owned. That's also not all that hard. When I wanted to use a piece of music in a short piece (not for profit, not widely distributed), I contacted the musicians, explained the project, and was given permission and directions for how to credit them. When I wanted to put a photo of bo diddley on my own website, I contacted his PR people through his website and got permission - even though I took the photo myself. Several times I've had strangers contact me asking to use one of my photos in a piece they were working on; I've always given permission.

On your points, which are valid, the evidence of how Koons told his staff to specifically COPY and make it exactly like the photograph, with written notes etc. versus how this was a man's attempt to capture a known political figure and create a new interpretation, add an element of color, fontographic design and other rebuilding of a public figure's image that could never have been envisioned (and for which the numerous derivative works *below* show a unique character). Also, the fact that no one could even initially locate the photo from which it supposedly came or recognize it gives it substantial protection in my opinion but that is not the point entirely. Political expression is going to be the saving grace to this case in my opinion.



The expansion of the concepts which his painting led to show the uniqueness and genuine new-work aspects to his design. Yes, if this had been any other photo of any other artists' interpretation of a work, it might have protections which could be given rights, but this was a political speech of his that, from a generic standpoint of anyone at the time, took on a life of it's own outside of anything anyone would have imagined. It happened to be successful in its own right BUT remains political speech for the purpose of its existence. It was not designed for any other reason than for political speech. Just because it became successful does not diminish the political speech purpose for which it was intended. In fact, without the political speech aspect of the design, it could be argued it would NOT have been successful. Political speech is much more highly protected than pure commercial use. These are my opinions and yours are taken as well. No one has the answer, only a court will decide and that can even be the 'wrong' answer as courts have sent people to their deaths even when innocent.

Disney was sued by Monster Cable because they said THEY own the rights to the word 'monster'. And you know what Disney did? They settled. That is why you will not find a 'tm' on anything 'Monsters, Inc.' related. SCARY. It isn't the fact that they felt Monster Cable really did own the word 'Monster' it is because they made a business decision to not let their movie go through a legal nightmare in public. I know, that is not copyright, but it is a sign that the laws regarding trademark, copyright and other laws have been in flux for as long as time and it will not be answered legitimately in a court of law.

isn't a justification. Nobody here supported republicans illegally appropriating musicians' songs for use at campaign events. I'd toss that argument out completely - this piece was promotional advertising material, not "political speech," especially when the campaign itself was involved.

If you want to argue that it was 90% his own creative process, I think a lot of designers would disagree - running the equivalent of an autotrace function doesn't make it substantially his own work and most professional artists would be beyond pissed off if someone else ran a posterization filter on our photos and used them for their own commercial purposes without permission.

I can't think of anyone who's won a copyright case based on that argument or minimal level of alteration to an image.

from a legal review:

The complaint also fails to mention Fairey's strongest potential defense: the poster is core political speech made during the course of a political campaign protected by the First Amendment. There is a lot of good case law about political speech, and the fact that the image was used and sold to promote a political viewpoint during a political campaign gives it a great level of deference. According to the complaint, Fairey sold 4,000 posters for $45 and used all of the proceeds to distribute nearly 300,000 posters for free. The U.S. Supreme Court has a pretty good record of upholding free speech in the political arena, and Fairey did pick a winning candidate.

From my understanding, this is not an 'autotrace function', but regardless, the court will have the final say unless the AP wants to have their reputation run through the system longer than is beneficial to their company's image. I don't think the David and Goliath scenario benefits their position at all and can do substantial harm to a 'news' organization getting involved in political speech.

Ironically, the photographer who took the image supports the artist. I do agree he was wrong to not admit to his very own legal team the fact that he did use the image in the beginning but I'm guessing he thought he could avoid all the hassle by saying otherwise, but it was not very smart and he realized his mistake & has finally come clean.

video of painting at National Portrait Gallery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVCEYfiyq-g

Protected political speech under the constitution means you can visually or verbally equate Obama with the concept of hope without being arrested.

It does not mean you are granted the rights to use and sell other people's copyrighted material. Those are two separate issues.

Whether or not the candidate won shouldn't be in the discussion; it's not relevant.

Whether or not he made the image more famous than it otherwise would have been shouldn't be in the discussion; that's not an exemption under fair use.

and since I don't think the issue of being arrested has anything to do with whether the speech is political or not - and certainly it makes no logical sense, we'll see what ends up being the ruling. The very fact that this was used to support a candidate and the political ideas he stood for shows that it is absolutely NOT a stretch to say it was political speech. It was 100% political speech and without the political election, this image would have no consequence or meaning. Just because he didn't write DOPE, instead of HOPE across it doesn't mean it isn't political speech. The original image itself conveyed no message whatsoever except being a shot of a candidate. No one embraced that photo. It was only until the artist created his own new element referencing elements of a captured pose of a public political figure that the public took it to heart and it became symbolic of the campaign and ideals behind it. This very change in response by the American public shows it was a new animal.

Watching the museum video demonstrates the work to be much more than an 'auto trace' function as you put it so I'm not sure I can take your other opinions to heart as it seems they are not compelling, nor necessary accurate as it was obviously much more than running 'a posterization filter' by the nature of the media and fabrication involved.

And political speech IS going to prove to be a valid argument, especially since literally words are included both as the main typographic element of the portrait and further supported by descriptive words included in the collage described in the video. The fact one word is used versus three or twelve really is of no matter. A single word can express volumes if properly used. If the word DEATH was on the picture, it would certainly convey a completely different message than it does currently, but it is still a single word.

I'm sure they will lug that 4 x 8 foot beauty into court and let the jury decide if it constitutes an effort to create a new work of political expression or whether it was simply an attempt to copy the AP photo.

Yes, it's an artistic interpretation, but the photo itself, is art and subject to protected rights.

I hope that they can come up with some sort of compromise, but he does indeed have the weaker position.

for lifting the plot of several of his plays including Taming of the Shrew from previous sources.

The AP photo was good, but the poster was iconic. Only way from point A to point B was artistic inspiration. It's patently absurd, no pun intended, to punish someone for making such an amazing, unprecedented contribution. If anything he deserves a share of the Nobel money.

As for AP, if this is their attitude towards information, it's no wonder they deliver such a distorted image of the world. Only facts that are worth money? And what does money measure? Collective delusion, right?

Sigh. More hope, less AP, please.

at the time he took this shot.

this is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that Shep lifts graphics. An argument for plagiarism can be made to be sure, but everytime this subject comes up it smacks of nothing more than player hating. There are a lot of very talented artists out there who are pissed and bitter because he found a niche while thier works go unnoticed.

In the strictest sense.

:eyes:

Total parasite.

And he's a shitty artist to boot.

Ripping other people off and it still looks terrible.

Even though the work lives in the context of another work, that never stopped Bored of the Rings or "Like a Sturgeon" from achieving (limited) commercial distribution. I feel like the author of that critique didn't "get the joke" in each example, even if it's a lame one, but Che Guevara wearing an Andre the Giant T-shirt or whatever is a type of statement in itself, even if it's crass and self-referential and possibly reactionary.