Obama Poster

climbing_vine said:
Corollary: if all Garcia did was point the camera (which he did the same as everyone else, with essentially no creative choice), couldn't you make an argument that the programmers of the Nikon/Canon firmware and software, and whoever did the post-processing on the image, have far more rights to it than him or the AP?

The law doesn't allow for that, but from a moral standpoint I'd find that a very persuasive stance.
Click to expand...

If I record a song using my Kramer guitar or Casio keyboard, do they get equal billing? After all, at least in the case of a keyboard or electronic instrument with sampled sounds, they are, well, sampled sounds.

Actually, the sampling music software I use explicitly says "royalty free", so at least they clarify that. But in the case of musical instruments and cameras, I think the understanding is that the tool is expected to be used to create work, otherwise the tool is not very useful.
 
I guess in case the photographer is almost irrelevant because at the time he was shooting for AP and thus AP is the holder of the copyright as the financing company for the work's creation.

I also think that copyright cases are split into two parts (maybe not literally but chronologically) where first use is established and then damages. And that in situations where actual damages are hard to calculate, statutory damages are applied.

I would wonder if the ambiguity in profits for Fairey wouldn't perhaps mean that statutory damages would be applied in this case, if the court does agree with the assertion of use (has the court commented on how they view Fairey's admission?)

I think statutory damages start at $200/use, and since AP is contesting a single use, I would agree with one of the previous posters here that AP is trying to protect their brand, not exact some financial penalty, while seeking clarification of a legal principle through the courts.

Interesting.
 
memphis said:
so, the consensus, if I'm reading you guys correctly, is that I am at liberty to take the iconic picture of che gueverra and make the face obama's using photoshop - and distribute it all over the internet, sell it in galleries, position myself to where it becomes a rallying poster for the republicans with no consequences.... because it's a new work and so forth

Viva Art!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! But someone already beat you to it.

http://www.zazzle.com/che_guevara_spoof_obama_tshirt-235341196794049430
 
mich8261 said:
I do not believe that to be the case. They might have considered using the poster officially, but decided against it.
Click to expand...

Correct. The "Obama commissioned it!" line started getting thrown in by people with political motivations who were wholly ignorant of the case, and it's now one of those wonderful internet-truths.
 
Let's get this out of the way: He was an idiot for lying and could face criminal charges for that. But that is 100% unrelated to whether his work was fair use or not.

I'd argue that it was. If you check the copyright office's page on fair use, they state four criteria, one which is: "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." Substantially altering a non-distinctive photo (there are thousands just like that one!*) creates no confusion or competition with the original work.

*Yes, this really does matter.
 
Last edited:
There may be an interesting additional source of inspiration for the Obama poster ... as discussed in a letter to the magazine N+1 several months ago:

[Given that] much of Fairey's work owes its inspiration to the work of the Russian constructivists and to images of various political figures seen in propaganda posters ... there is a more basic source for Fairey's art, at once more obvious and more hidden: John Carpenter's 1988 sci-fi movie "They Live."

In "They Live," wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper plays an out-of-work construction worker who stumbles on a pair of sunglasses that, when worn, reveal to the wearer the world as it really is: a collection of black-on-white signs, on billboards and wherever text appears, featuring slogans like "OBEY," "CONSUME," "MARRY AND REPRODUCE," "WATCH TV." On paper money, the slogan reads, "THIS IS YOUR GOD." A race of aliens secretly controls everything, and the sunglasses allow the wearer to see them as they are, too: as metal-faced monsters in bad toupees.

... It's a radical genre film ... [and] it is ironic that this source remains*unacknowledged*in discussions about this artist who claims to be engaged in the same kind of truth-telling as the film he was inspired by, or borrowed from, or ripped off.
Click to expand...

Full text of letter and Carpenter image here:

http://www.nplusonemag.com/letters-radical-shill
 
Fairey is a tool anyway. So much of his early work was a tease at corporations. Now you can walk in to any Urban Outfitters and buy a OBEY purse or some stupid pre-faded overpriced jeans that are made in china. I hope he gets nailed.
 
I have never seen Pres. Obama in person, I have only ever seen him on TV. Does this mean that if I were to paint a portrait of him I would need to worry about copy right of the images I have derived my portrait from?
Rob
 
rbiemer said:
I have never seen Pres. Obama in person, I have only ever seen him on TV. Does this mean that if I were to paint a portrait of him I would need to worry about copy right of the images I have derived my portrait from?
Rob
Click to expand...

So say the fascists.

(I'm using that term deliberately, not flippantly.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom