What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
17 Comments
- gorgeoussand, on 10/20/2009, -0/+11FTA: Kiwi Camara, the defense attorney for Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman dinged nearly $2 million for infringing 24 songs, knows well the impact that a less-than-forthcoming client might have on a jury. “If the jury believes your client mislead the court, that doesn’t go over well. ”
He is screwed. - neonoodle, on 10/20/2009, -2/+10Seems you have no knowledge of the law or what it takes to make an artistic image. Yes, you could take his portrait and change it significantly and claim it as your own because in that case it is your own. You've added value to the work by changing it and making it different. Whether he likes it or not, it doesn't matter. Every single piece of art and technology ever created is based on work that has come before it.
- neonoodle, on 10/20/2009, -0/+6Yes, they could... but why would they? Art is not about how well you could draw a picture without reference - that's craft. Art is about communicating an idea. If you could communicate it with a photoshop illustration and not a drop of paint, then it's still art, just with less craft involved.
- alanocu, on 10/20/2009, -1/+7I'm afraid you are right. The one thing that can take an artist down really fast is dishonesty.
- otherwiseyep, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3Shepard Fairey has a long history of plagiarisms, frequently taking credit for the work of more obscure artists:
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
The Obama Hope picture is not really close to the worst example, but I'm glad he finally got called out on it. - Atario, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1I dunno -- seems to me it hardly makes any difference. One photo vs. another photo by the same photographer at the same event; there are roughly a googolplex other photos almost the same as these; and neither photo looks exactly like the artwork anyway. The whole complaint in the first place seems asinine.
- ObamaYouth, on 10/20/2009, -1/+2I just don't think it's art to photoshop a photo.
Can artists today make a portrait without the help of a camera? - jonathono2000, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1I was just about to post the same link. If you read his book it does explain to a somewhat understandable extent why he does it, but that doesn't mean it is okay.
I don't think he is a great artist by any means just a greedy businessman that found a niche exploiting the ignorant. - jeffrowe, on 10/20/2009, -0/+1No matter how you feel about Shepard Fairey and this whole situation, somebody has to use his own images both for and against him... hehehe - enjoy
http://yfrog.com/5fsfpossej
http://yfrog.com/3oistealzurphotosg
http://yfrog.com/1rguiltyp - CompositeSense, on 10/21/2009, -0/+0Fair Use --- Everyday, samplers, rappers, and egotistical evangelisticshaman misuse the power of electronic media and sample and borrow - but to me, it is WITHIN and LEGAL among the "fair use" Doctrine.. ANyhowv --- Fair use can defend this....
- neonoodle, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1I don't have personal political bias as I don't care if it was Obama or McCain in that illustration, but I am an artist so I know a bit about fair use and what it means to use someone else's work in a piece of art. It's up to the courts to decide whether a piece of art is changed significantly enough for fair use, but this is clearly an example of fair use. Fairey didn't just slap a cutout from the original photo into photoshop and apply a filter. He significantly changed it. He completely changed the composition and the colors. He made it a graphic representation that meant 100 times more to people than the original photo did of him with George Clooney, and it became one of the signature images from the election. That's what "change significantly" means. Did the original photographer intend that photo to elicit Hope? No, it was just a candid shot. Fairey added context, emotion, and a message to a standard photograph.
- ItWasOnlyAJoke, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1Ohhh really? So I have no knowledge of the law? Well tell me Mr. Lawyer, what does "change it significantly" mean? Do you think that by basically cartooning a real photograph, he has changed it significantly? Can I take a famous song, change about half of it, and then license it as my own? People have been sued for taking just parts of other songs and putting it in theirs. It seems as though you have no knowledge of fairness.
That's nonsense. I can't just take some portrait and nail on a few extras, then expect it to me mine. And honestly you are really distorting the meaning of art when you say "Every single piece of art and technology ever created is based on work that has come before it." First of all, technology is different than art and is usually under patents. Art is in a different class. You are right when you say it is based on work that has come before it, but it doesn't just RIP that work from the previous works.
If this guy was so sure he had "changed it significantly," then why did he lie? I suggest using truly objective thinking and not letting your personal political bias become involved. - ZigZagZilla, on 10/20/2009, -1/+1There is a long history of artists using various mechanical means to help accomplish their art. Do you consider any of Warhol's screens to be art? What if an artist uses aids to help judge perspective and proportion? At what point have you removed enough apparatus to be considered an artist?
There is nothing wrong with working smart. Use the right tool for the job to get it done well and on time. - dualityim, on 10/20/2009, -2/+1Haha, "hope" remains for obama poster artist. I get it!
- 4NDr01D, on 10/20/2009, -2/+1Fairey's is 4 colors red white blue and black
the AP image is 256 colors on my computerscreen
not the same sorry AP you lose
its like Mozart suing the Beatles because they used 4 notes and Mozart used 256 - fastasfoggy, on 10/20/2009, -7/+4I say the fraud is in the picture.
- ItWasOnlyAJoke, on 10/20/2009, -6/+1Fair use?! Well can I take HIS portrait and claim it as my own? Can I go copy it dot for dot and copyright it, then sell it on eBay? I bet he wouldn't like that too much!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is