What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
45 Comments
- odkin, on 02/12/2009, -3/+16The issue is that Shepard Fairey has a long history of ripping off other people's art, turning it into Soviet style iconography and reselling it without credit or compensation to the original artist, or in this case photographer. This particular photo was bought and paid for by the AP. They own it for purposes of making $s off it, not him.
Here are many documented examples of his theft: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm - schavira, on 02/12/2009, -4/+13Although this case is ridiculous, Shepard Fairey is a plagiarist, it cannot be denied.
- PNooch, on 02/11/2009, -4/+13Entertaining commentary on a very interesting issue... nice post!
- jamesgoss, on 02/12/2009, -1/+8Am I the only one who views SF's work as not being plagiarized, but merely appropriation of the originals? I'm sure the bury brigade will have their way with me for having a different opinion than them, but he's not the only other artist to do this. ... Duchamp and the readymades, Braque and Picasso with their use of found objects, hell, pretty much all of the Dadaists, Sherrie Levinne... this isn't a new concept.
[quote from wiki] To appropriate something involves taking possession of it. In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to the use of borrowed elements in the creation of new work. The borrowed elements may include images, forms or styles from art history or from popular culture, or materials and techniques from non-art contexts. Since the 1980s the term has also referred more specifically to quoting the work of another artist to create a new work. The new work does not actually alter the original per se; the new work uses the original to create a new work. In most cases the original remains accessible as the original, without change. - schavira, on 02/12/2009, -1/+7There's nothing really wrong with the Obama picture in terms of art. Though it may be infringement, it's basically the same type of thing as that stylized Che Guevara picture.
However, when you do stuff like this
http://flickr.com/photos/thenerd/332243824/
I call that stealing, without a doubt. - bluekangaroo, on 02/12/2009, -0/+6I "hope" that Shepard Fairey doesn't mind me printing a few hundred t shirts with that image.
- fotoman, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5This guy is a moron. If you don't want your photo taken, don't go out in public. The AP cannot make commercial items from this photo, they don't have a model release. They can use the photo for print/electronic publication in an editorial context, but NOT a commercial one.
Just because you own the copyright to something doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever you want with that photo. I own the copyright (one actually registered with the US Patent and Trademark office) to over 700,000 images. But I can't make posters out of them and sell to random people on the street, no model release. Copyright doesn't work that way. - Balath, on 02/12/2009, -3/+8Are you an idiot? First, although you say plagiarist, I think you are confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement. I can only direct you to Wikipedia for a decent contrast of the two. If you are claiming that he's a plagiarist (which may be true - though to refrain from citing that particular AP image is like refraining to mention that your source material was the Mona Lisa; it's not hard to figure out) just to be a smart-ass, well, I suppose you'll have to forgive me for this:
In no way is he infringing copyright. If he is, then mix CDs are illegal. So are remixes. Film documentaries are out, just like photo collages. Don't you understand? He used something that already existed to make something else. He absolutely, drastically, and fundamentally changed another artist's work. Obama can't claim ownership of his image after the AP appropriated it in a picture, and the AP can't claim ownership of the picture when Fairey appropriates IT for his own artwork. What the photographer did with the camera, Fairey did with image editing tools. The cameraman caught a moment from real life. Fairey caught an emotion from that moment.
Read "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons. It's a 300+ page book on copyright law, but as an indication of how good it was, I read it from cover to cover.
If Fairey had used the image (as it was) without consent, like on a personal web page or as a book cover, or had he presented the snapped photo as his own artwork, it would have been infringment. To say that he can't do what he did, however, is like saying that I can't write a story that mirrors any Disney plot.
Take Sleeping Beauty. If I wrote a story that blatantly used the same characters, plot, and details as the Disney version, Disney would sue my ass off. However, if I re-wrote it in a way that it was still recognizable as Sleeping Beauty, but subtly changed the tone as to turn it into a scathing commentary on gender roles, I would be completely safe.
Fair. Use. - schavira, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5When you claim to "draw" all of your art though can you really call it a collage? It's not like that picture was a reference to propaganda or things normally present in Fairey's works, it contained no irony or anything of the sort. It just looked cool and face it, he definitely stole it.
- mrnoob, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4Can somone explain what the issue is here? They are angry that the AP took a photo of him? Or that some guy made an art piece?
- moothemagiccow, on 02/12/2009, -0/+3There are few cases where you can lay claim to a picture of yourself. A photo belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Otherwise, paparazzi wouldn't exist.
- inactive, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5What a douche. If someone stole a picture this jackass took and turned it into millions of dollars, he'd be crying the same song.
If the AP picture had never been taken, that poster never would have happened. Period. You steal, you pay. Period. - voxtarri, on 02/13/2009, -0/+3In Texas, any photo taken in a public place is copyright the photographer. Any photo taken in a private place with your permission, is copyright the photographer even if it is in your own house
- clickmyface, on 02/12/2009, -1/+4Did you read the article you linked?
Here is a one liner that sums it up: "it is machine art that any second-rate art student could produce"
Well golly gee gosh buddy, if you were bitter that Fairey was a better known artist than you in 2007, you must be livid now!
I absolutely do not like any artist who spends his time arguing and defining what is and what is not art. What a huge douche bag prick. - ayeroxor, on 02/12/2009, -0/+3It's a good thing that I can take a picture of a public scene and not have to ask permission of everyone there, or draw a picture of a public figure and not have to have that public figure's permission.
It's a good thing that I can draw a picture of my president and he can't lay claim to how I can use it, or take it from me by force. - Dumbledorito, on 02/12/2009, -0/+3This isn't a new concept. I used to work in advertising (yeah, yeah) and we were told when doing ads where the client wanted their photo in the ad (usually lawyers), they had to have the rights to their photo. That meant no studio photography, no Glamor Shots, etc. The studio that snaps the photo, even if it's of you, owns the copyright to that image.
- clickmyface, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5I think this is a little presumptive. I work in copyright, and I don't find it likely that AP will win a court case. The key is the degree that he "transformed" the original work into his own derivative piece. If it's deemed transformed enough, then it falls under a derivative work protected by fair use. In that case, AP gets nothing.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Then why are people BUYING AP images?
It is a derivative work -- it isn't a Photo anymore.
They might have an issue if he took the photo for free, and created art from it -- but that is a stretch and would be a fine.
If I bought an AP photo, and changed it this much -- I would say they have NO RIGHT to it.
Seriously, this defeats the whole point in buying artwork from all these photo sources if they can turn around and sue you for anything you DERIVE from that photo. Nonsense.
FTA
"
DO: Blue Steel Yourself
Zoolander had Blue Steel - what’s stopping you from a signature expression (or two hundred)? It’s easy to take back what’s yours - just grab a camera, start making faces, and submit each of the shots for trademarking. Had Obama done this with that signature gaze, he could’ve blasted AP for ripping him off.
"
>> Oh Hell No. You cannot copyright an expression -- you get the photo you took. Had Obama thought that this was the case, he would have just posed again. I didn't realize that we all have to submit every possible expression of our own bodies to have a right to our own expression. I'll do the same with funny voices I can make in every word in the dictionary, as soon as I have a spare $1 Billion and 20 years to do it. - jamesgoss, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2Well, as a counterpoint, is a quote always considered verbal? Sherrie Levinne became famous after she photographed another artists work, (piece referenced is "after walker evans") and displayed it as her own. granted, she was making a statement about questioning the value of the "original", but can that sort of thinking not be applied here as well?
i just feel like there's too many uneducated opinions around here talking as if they actually know a damn thing about the art world, and how it functions. (not a stab at you zantos420) - ChloeMS, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2[sarcasm]
Dear Pres,
Pose again for the photo, using a different frame of mind, but a normal gaze, than you had when the original was taken. Then, pay the photographer to give it an artful twist. EXACT WORDS. Have various artful/graphic enhancements made.
Then freely distribute them to the masses, thereby diluting the worth of the so-called photo in question.
[/sarcasm] - pagit, on 02/12/2009, -1/+3if a picture is worth 1000 words , then just write a 1000 word essay about the picture then it's yours to keep
- ubershmekel, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2Did I miss anything? I wasn't entertained one bit...
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Then why are people BUYING AP images?
It is a derivative work -- it isn't a Photo anymore.
They might have an issue if he took the photo for free, and created art from it -- but that is a stretch and would be a fine.
If I bought an AP photo, and changed it this much -- I would say they have NO RIGHT to it.
Seriously, this defeats the whole point in buying artwork from all these photo sources if they can turn around and sue you for anything you DERIVE from that photo. Nonsense. - zantos420, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2> i just feel like there's too many uneducated opinions around here talking as if they actually know a damn thing
there's the statement of the year we're on digg lol
I would say understanding or not it should be common courteousy to give credit where credit is due when using someone elses work as your base work; would you not agree? - maffiou, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2He would have used another one... If anything this has made the shot more famous...
He should give credit where it is due, but this is going into stupid measures... - Balath, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2See my reply to schavira's comment (a bit up the page). I totally agree.
- zantos420, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2just playing devils advocate here but,
"[..] the term has also referred more specifically to quoting the work of another artist [..]"
He isn't giving them credit and that's the problem. - Travelsonic, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Doesn't exactly answer my question on the relevance of theft.
- clickmyface, on 02/12/2009, -2/+3Do you think that's the title the Smithsonian, the Museum of Art in LA, Modern Art in NY, the Albert Museum in London, etc have used to describe his work over the years?
I don't think so. - inactive, on 02/12/2009, -2/+3I believe I've been infringed on my infringement of copyright infringement, how dare they infringe this infringement of the infringemed populous.
- eleete, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1I wish there were as much fury for the fact that the public domain was being harmed each Government(Representatives/PUBLIC Servants) extended the terms and reach of copyright. There's really no secret as to why.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?in
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?c
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting IP for 'limited terms' and Scope(fair use). Yet when a song(video, picture, book) is protected for the life of the artist + 70 years after their death, I think we've gotten far away from copyright's original intent. Is it proper to allow one organization to use someones content and not allow the original author to use that organizations ( http://tinyurl.com/con3nc )? Who are we giving incentive to if the author/artist is already dead ?? The corporations that have continually paid for the law to be streched? It sure would be great if we could all earn money on those terms. What if I walked in and announced to my boss that I would be working for the next year (or two or more) but then I would retire and expect renumeration for the rest of my life, PLUS 70 years ? Does it even sound plausable ? I realize that earnings come slowly on some items, But giving someone 170 potential years of a MONOPOLY might just hold a greater interest for a single entity Far More than the public domain, or We The People. Notice the US Constitution excluded one of the most heavily used words in the english languages. I.
Am I still a cheap pirate, torturing the lives of artists if I head to AnyTown USA and 'check out' 2 albums, 3 books and 2 videos from my local library ? Have I deprived an author and his children of future meals ? I realize Someone/library paid for a single book, but is a library not based on free access to information, and fair use? Not to mention how helpful it is to have a grand, flourishing public domain so that you may use my work, just as I might use yours. (Imagine how much incentive that would be to creativity and innovation) Jeez given how many citizens there are and how many libraries, I sure feel sorry for the Music, Television and content associations that cry, those poor poor artists, that we keep ripping off. They must be so hungry.
Unless its all based upon Greed ! - eleete, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1I wish there were as much fury for the fact that the public domain was being harmed each Government(Representatives/PUBLIC Servants) extended the terms and reach of copyright. There's really no secret as to why.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?in
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?c
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting IP for 'limited terms' and Scope(fair use). Yet when a song(video, picture, book) is protected for the life of the artist + 70 years after their death, I think we've gotten far away from copyright's original intent. Is it proper to allow one organization to use someones content and not allow the original author to use that organizations ( http://tinyurl.com/con3nc )? Who are we giving incentive to if the author/artist is already dead ?? The corporations that have continually paid for the law to be streched? It sure would be great if we could all earn money on those terms. What if I walked in and announced to my boss that I would be working for the next year (or two or more) but then I would retire and expect renumeration for the rest of my life, PLUS 70 years ? Does it even sound plausable ? I realize that earnings come slowly on some items, But giving someone 170 potential years of a MONOPOLY might just hold a greater interest for a single entity Far More than the public domain, or We The People. Notice the US Constitution excluded one of the most heavily used words in the english languages. I.
Am I still a cheap pirate, torturing the lives of artists if I head to AnyTown USA and 'check out' 2 albums, 3 books and 2 videos from my local library ? Have I deprived an author and his children of future meals ? I realize Someone/library paid for a single book, but is a library not based on free access to information, and fair use? Not to mention how helpful it is to have a grand, flourishing public domain so that you may use my work, just as I might use yours. (Imagine how much incentive that would be to creativity and innovation) Jeez given how many citizens there are and how many libraries, I sure feel sorry for the Music, Television and content associations that cry, those poor poor artists, that we keep ripping off. They must be so hungry.
Unless its all based upon Greed ! - dbzssj44676, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2How to Infringe on Copyright:
Know a neighbor with an internet connection. - ChromaVita, on 02/12/2009, -3/+2What's the queen got to do with this?
- Oringe, on 02/12/2009, -3/+2does he claim to "draw" everything? from what i understand, and from what ive seen at shows, is that he works in stencils and collage. and there could be any number of interpretations to that piece. the face actually isnt just a cool face, it was done by Kolomon Moser who was a graphic artist. Shepard is also a graphic artist and could be using the face with the tagline to reference the Vienna Secession which was focused on pulling away from "conservative" art. it could symbolize pulling away from a conservative war oriented point of view and moving towards more free open art worldview. a lot of his work deals with those concepts. also, he could be using the image on purpose because of its notoriety as a cover of Ver Sacum, which is the title of that piece but also the title of the magazine Moser worked on. i just dont see it as that black and white.
- moorthynila, on 02/12/2009, -2/+0sdfdsfdasfsf
- Travelsonic, on 02/12/2009, -5/+3"Here are many documented examples of his theft:"
I fail to se how theft is relevant in this case, but I see how the case of him being an infringing fraud is there. - moorthynila, on 02/12/2009, -2/+0sdfdsfsfsf
- moorthynila, on 02/12/2009, -2/+0dfdasfdsfd
- Oringe, on 02/12/2009, -4/+2"To appropriate something involves taking possession of it. In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to the use of borrowed elements in the creation of new work. The borrowed elements may include images, forms or styles from art history or from popular culture, or materials and techniques from non-art contexts. Since the 1980s the term has also referred more specifically to quoting the work of another artist to create a new work. The new work does not actually alter the original per se; the new work uses the original to create a new work. In most cases the original remains accessible as the original, without change."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art) - maz2331, on 02/12/2009, -6/+4Soon, the President won't be able to show his own face in public without paying a royalty...
- moorthynila, on 02/12/2009, -3/+0sadfasfdasf
- Oringe, on 02/12/2009, -4/+1personally, i dont see any difference between that poster and using an image from any print source in a collage. or the obvious example of "the fountain" by duchamp, or other readymades, found objects, etc.
- moorthynila, on 02/12/2009, -3/+0dfdasfasfdasfd
- alooha, on 02/11/2009, -6/+2Dugg. Good article
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is