What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
222 Comments
- AquaOSX, on 02/05/2009, -3/+119Note: The photographer loves the poster, doesn't like the idea of a lawsuit, and would love a signed copy.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/01/27/the-obama-h ...
Time to pull out the sharpie Shepard :) - fribhey, on 02/05/2009, -7/+51wrong, the AP is not right. it's called Fair Use:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Shepard transformed the original image, changed the message and changed the meaning. He also didn't even use the photo in his illustration, he created a three color illustration based of off the photo which he did by hand using rubylith and then converted the hand cut rubylith to vectors by scanning it in.
the AP can only claim copyright on the actual photo, which i mentioned was not used in the final illustration. they can't claim copyright to obama's image, only obama could do that but the second he became president he lost that privilege.
the AP doesn't have a case. - thelastcivilian, on 02/05/2009, -4/+41Someday, somewhere, someone is going to sit down and figure out what exactly "fair use" covers (and include in that discussion the issue of derivative works).
I don't expect that to be anytime soon, anywhere nearby, or by any of us, but I can HOPE. :P
http://i39.tinypic.com/jh93fb.jpg - thelastcivilian, on 02/05/2009, -1/+32Until recently, they didn't even know it was one of their own photos.
Hell, until recently, Reuters thought it was one of theirs! http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2009/01/15/iconic-o ... - jaypooner, on 02/05/2009, -18/+44f*ck AP
- Daniel591992, on 02/05/2009, -1/+27That'll sure show them!
- scy1192, on 02/05/2009, -6/+28Obama should claim copyright infringement on his soul. We all know those darn cameras violently rip out your soul if you're caught on film.
Also before I'm buried due to misunderstanding... people used to think cameras took away your soul and put it on a piece of paper. - godzillaWax, on 02/05/2009, -8/+26He didn't use it, he created something new from it.
- diblasio, on 02/05/2009, -1/+19That'll show 'em!
- Izz1011, on 02/05/2009, -4/+18That show!
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/05/2009, -0/+14actually that whole percentage thing is a giant wives tale and holds no value in a court of law. My IP lawyer informed me that there is no magic legal percentage that changes theft to fair use. Its all subjective.
- inactive, on 02/05/2009, -4/+17++++++++++#@++++++++++++
+++++++########++++++++++
++++++#####++###+++++++++
+++++##++++++++##++++++++
+++++#++++++++++##+++++++
++++#+++++++++++###++++++
++++#++++++++++++##++++++
+++#+++++++++######++++++
+++#++++##+ ########+++++
+++#+++#+#+++++++++#+++++
+++#++###++++++++++##++++
+++#+++++++++++++++#+++++
++++#++++++++##@++##++++
++++++++++@###++++##++++
+++#+#+++++++++++++#+++++
+++#++++++++####+++#+++++
++++++#++++#--#+++##+++++
++++#+#++++++++++###+++++
+++++#+#+++++++++#####+++
++++++++++++++++########+
++++++++##++++##########+
++++++++++@#######+#####+
++++++####++#####++#####+
++++######++++##++######+
+++#######+++##+++######+
+######### ++#++++######+
+#########+++++++##+++##+
+##########+++#++##+##+#+
+##########++++#+##+++##+
+##########+++#+####+###+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++ - jchrome, on 02/05/2009, -6/+19*****, this is new artwork, even if the photo was used as a reference.
- godzillaWax, on 02/05/2009, -11/+24AP is a journalistic entity, right? Meaning the news is their main concern, right? Sorry, cause for a second there I was confusing them with douchenozzle lawyers.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/05/2009, -4/+16I don't think they have a case. The image is based off the photo but I do not believe it is the same photo. I don't think this is simply an image with a photoshop filter plastered over it.
It looks very similar to the original photo but there are minute details. For example look at the bottom of the right eye. On the original photo it is angled upward. On the hope poster it is flatter.
Also on the left side of the original photo Obama's hairline is further down compared to the hope poster.
Being based on the original photo is not enough. If this was simply a photoshop filter they might have a case. And I say might because even then the law is iffy. Especially considering this poster is not tapping into any potential funds the AP might have lost. It's not like they were going to use the photo for anything other than selling the news. They weren't going to make posters out of it. Their markets do not compete with each other so a judge is more likely to be lienient because there are no real damages. - Thumper13, on 02/05/2009, -3/+15This one is tough. As a photographer I can understand AP's position.
But, the artist altered enough of the photo that it now has some similarity, but it is not a copy.
I hope the artist wins. He should be able to create that poster from a news image. - westondeboer, on 02/05/2009, -6/+18http://obeygiant.com shepard faireys official website
- JDoorjam, on 02/05/2009, -3/+14People spoof brand names and get away with it because satire is protected under the First Amendment. This is not satire.
AP still doesn't stand a chance, mind you, but that isn't why people get away with "spoofing." - PeanutCheeseBar, on 02/05/2009, -3/+14That!
- Wailord, on 02/05/2009, -8/+18Well, if someone owns the rights to something and someone else uses it and publicizes it, isn't there a right of the owner to do something?
- 919kwjc, on 02/05/2009, -2/+11Read the article dude - the artist admits he based the work on that picture.
You look like a fool. - CATSCEO2, on 02/05/2009, -2/+11WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
- 3amboo, on 02/05/2009, -1/+10***** THE RIAA. JUST FUUCCCCCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ***** ***** ***** IT!!!!!!
- candre23, on 02/05/2009, -1/+9If people were just taking the photo and writing "Hope" under it, then yes, that would be accurate. That's not what has happened here. The artist is not using the photo, he has created a painting based on the photo. It has been completely recreated with different colors and tones. The fact is that the original photo, while good, did not (and never would have) attained the iconic status of the Hope poster. It is the artistic reinterpretation that grabs people and makes the picture iconic.
- stubear, on 02/05/2009, -1/+9Copyright protects derivatives, not just copies.
- SuperCujo, on 02/05/2009, -0/+7I like hats. They shade my head.
- cyrix, on 02/05/2009, -2/+9His brother's problems have what to do with him again?
- had3l, on 02/05/2009, -1/+7I demand compensation for improper use of copyrighted work.
/signed AP - Vexonian, on 02/05/2009, -0/+6This image has been removed due to a copyright infringement claimed by Universal Music Group, .. I mean Viacom... I mean Associated Press.
- EntropyMan, on 02/05/2009, -0/+6I don't see where it says he traced it, just that he used their photo as a source for his art. If you super-impose the two images, one is looking more up and is more angled than the other. It's an original work, which is indistinguishable from something the artist could have drawn from Obama posing in person.
Now, if the AP wants to claim it owns the _character_ depicted in the image, as Disney might claim of the Mouse, then I think Obama himself might have a thing or two to say about that.
AP can only use his likeness for free given its news value. Otherwise, if, say, it wanted to sell posters or coffee mugs, it would have to get his permission too. In other words, if the artist has Obama's permission to sell posters and the AP doesn't, then I don't see how the AP can claim anyone owes them any money, since they're no worse off than they'd otherwise be. - rdldr1, on 02/05/2009, -3/+8Artists get inspiration from everywhere. Every "original" idea gets influenced from what has occured in the past.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/05/2009, -6/+11its called Karma. Fairey has built an entire career and turned himself into a highly profitable brand by stealing concepts, ideas, images and art from other people.
I love his work, and this Obama painting, but i also think he deserves to get sued. - GliTCH82, on 02/05/2009, -0/+5NEW YORK (AP) - On forums, image boards and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, typeset in ASCII format with the caption "+++++++++++++++++++++++++".
While the image was probably generated by some raster image to ASCII generator software program, it was most recently plastered across a Digg.com comment thread on a page referencing an AP article for which the AP is also alleging copyright infringement of that image in another format. The someone on the internet responsible for the posting: MadMax300, a Digg.com ASCII graffiti artist and alleged hacker extraordinaire. The image could lead to hundreds of potential "diggs", or virtual praises of approval by other Digg.com members and has become so much in demand that Digg.com members have also replied to the comment posted by MadMax3000 in praise of its blatant usage. The AP is currently investigating whether "diggs" could have monetary value for which they could seek compensation for.
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, MadMax3000 has yet to say anything about how he found the ASCII representation of the photograph found by Shepard Fairey using Google Images. - clickmyface, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4I work in a copyright office, and I suspect it would come down to the degree in which he "transformed" the original work. If his painting is concluded to be "substantially transformed" from the derived work, then fair use would be granted. This will probably be the angle.
It would also be interesting to analyze AP's use and placement of the photo. It may be the case that it was used as a thumbnail file photo at the left of their article or something. Meaning he substantially transformed the work into a cultural / iconic symbol and brought far more meaning to by painting and adding "hope" to the image.
That said, I don't see AP taking this one to court. They will likely settle at the standard or slightly-above-standard copyright permission rate. I hear Stanford has some pretty good lawyers, too. - thelastcivilian, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4If not his soul, at least his head tilt.
- Duamerthrax, on 02/05/2009, -2/+6hat!
- DAILYCROW, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4When Warhol painted a can of Cambels soup was he infringing?
Whose photograph of Monroe did he posterize in multiple colors?
Does his estate owe back payments for the profits generated? - PhillyOC, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4I Dugg you just to help offset the burial you will soon be receiving.
- JDoorjam, on 02/05/2009, -1/+5... not sure why you're getting buried. That really is his website, named after the first piece of artwork he made that got really big: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_the_Giant_ ...
- stubear, on 02/05/2009, -1/+5Apparently you've never taken a photograph with a professional camera. There is A LOT more to it then just point and shoot. There's also getting in the right place at the right time and for professional photographers, this is often not an accident or pure luck.
- inactive, on 02/05/2009, -10/+14Publicity stunt. If you alter an image to where 70% of it has changed it is no longer under a copyright infringement. That's how people that spoof brandnames get away with it.
*double checking 70% its been a while since I checked it but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Anyways AP doesn't have a chance in hell in court with this one. - senae, on 02/05/2009, -1/+5THE COLD WAR IS NEVER OVER!
PINKO SCUM! - saddino, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4That's the thing with "fair use" -- it's completely arbitrary depending on the nature of the work and the nature of the use. Only a judge can decide. Anyone who says "X seconds of any song/video" or "a redrawn version of Y" is "fair use" is actually full of sh!t.
- JDoorjam, on 02/05/2009, -5/+9People are up in arms against the AP because they are trying to defend their intellectual property? AP needs to pay the bills too. Just because a lot of people really like the end product doesn't mean that those who created the original lose all rights to it.
It is likely that they will lose in court, and I personally believe that they _should_ lose. The derivative work is simply too different from the original. But to have a robust media, it's vital that they be able at least to attempt to defend their intellectual property. Let them have their day in court, and in the meantime, put faith in our judiciary system to be sensible about this. - MikeMitchell, on 02/05/2009, -4/+7Its obvious that he used the photo as his reference, and most likely traced over it. However, side by side, they are completely distinct images, and what Shepard did with it, made it truly unique from the photo. I think the AP is grasping at straws here, but who knows. I'm on SF's side here.
- tgc1, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3It's a derivative work. Claim denied.
- rdldr1, on 02/05/2009, -2/+5Artists don't Xerox. He probably took that image of Obama, and opened it in Adobe Illustrator. He probably re-interpreted the face of Obama by locking in the original layer. He reduced the face into basic shapes, and took artistic license by making layers of light and dark colors.
It's been done before, the work being a version of interpolated rotoscope -- the technique used in the movie Scanner Darkly.
If you overlay AP's image with the work in question -- the two are not exact copies of one another. In my artistic opinion, the artistic work is stylized enough to not be a violation of copyright. The iconic Obama poster is just a victim of popularity. An artist's work becomes bastardized when lots of money is involved. - saddino, on 02/05/2009, -3/+6Look up "derivative work" and prepared to be surprised. It's not black and white, and courts have ruled one way and the other on this.
- Dumbledorito, on 02/05/2009, -2/+5I want to say I heard an interview with the artist on "Studio 360" (an NPR program) and they mentioned that the "Hope" image/painting was derived from an image that the Obama campaign had the rights to (I think whatever his first crack at the design was came from a different, but similarly posed, photo).
- Diggnabbit, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3That is absolutely wrong. There is no magic percentage that allows you to copy something. Plus, what would it even mean to change 70% of a picture? Change the colors? Crop it?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 227 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 