breitbart.com — On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Feb 5, 2009 View in Crawl 4
p522Feb 5, 2009
How does this matter more than permission or lack thereof?Fixed.
nick519Feb 5, 2009
where were they a year ago on this? oh, they waited until it was completely successful? fail.
ferensteinFeb 5, 2009
Should Campbell soups sue Andy Warhol?
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2009
Totally. Shepard would never steal an image. Here's proof:<a class="user" href="http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm">http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm</a>
rdldr1Feb 6, 2009
It's not a Xerox of the original image. It's an artistic rendering of Obama's likeness. If you overlay the original with the artistic work, the two are not exactly alike.He used a technique called rotoscoping. He took Obama's image, and broke it down into simple shapes and colors. Copyright infringement would be taking the image and passing it through a Photoshop filter. The artist did not do this, he made an original rendition on the likeness of Obama.Taking an image into Adobe Illustrator, then using the image as a template for creation is commonplace in the professional world. The art is just guilty of being too popular for its own good. When the creation started making lots of money, the Associated Press wanted what they saw as "their money."
brstilsonFeb 6, 2009
This just in...man being sued for humming a copyright-protected song.
r00fusFeb 6, 2009
This isn't a derivative. If I paint a rendition of, say, Rodin's "Thinker" ... it's clearly not a copy, then it's an original work.