Posted on 10/17/2009 5:04:53 PM PDT by South40
NEW YORK — Shepard Fairey's claim that he had the right to use a news photo to create his famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster became a widely watched court case about fair use that now appears to have nearly collapsed.
By Friday night, his attorneys – led by Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University – said they intend to withdraw from the case and said the artist had misled them by fabricating information and destroying other material.
Fairey himself admitted that he didn't use The Associated Press photo of Obama seated next to actor George Clooney he originally said his work was based on – which he claimed would have been covered under "fair use," the legal claim that copyrighted work can be used without having to pay for it.
Instead he used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source – a solo picture of the future president seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption "HOPE." Fairey said that he tried to cover up his error by submitting false images and deleting others.
(Excerpt) Read more at 3.signonsandiego.com ...
Given that they have admitted to trying to commit a fraud on the court, the judge should strike their pleadings and grant judgment for the AP.
Who gets the $$$ from the sales?
Zero looking down his nose. Fitting for a liberal elistist, no?
A left-wing propagandist who lies? I’m stuned.
Why would Fairey have had to use anyone else’s photo in the first place? It’s not like Obama was hard to find, or that Fairey didn’t have access to him. On the other hand, what’s so special about the AP photo? It looks exactly like 10 billion other pictures of His Heinous. He only has two expressions—grinning and looking serious. Fairey’s fatal error was lying about which photo he used. He should have just pleaded ignorance of copyright infringement.
I wouldn’t expect anything less from an Obama-maniac ...
I say reserve the judges' time for normal human beings.
Why on earth wouldn’t this be fair use???
It was for commercial purposes. He was paid for it. And he sold it.
Fairey certainly wouldn't approve of others taking his artwork and using it on T-shirts they printed and sold.
Clearly NOT "fair use".
More a cream yellow than white.
Looks like he has been pwned by AP.
Probably because they were selling the posters and neither AP nor the photographer was getting anything.
I see the merit of your position. It’s painful to have to cheer for AP. Like choosing between Stalin and Pol Pot.
It is fair use - because the work was “transformational” - which is why the fraud was stupid, let alone unethical. The defendant was already using the fair use defense, and would have prevailed.
Granted, that was a kind of “if I were king” remark. The USA was not made for kings, however. Therefore, rats can sue rats. If we despise AP, we still have reason to cheer that a fair result was reached.
Aye, but it is clearly NOT the AP photo. It is a separate work of art inspired by the AP photo, but a work of art in its own right.
It bears less resemblance to the AP photo than a ‘Fake Book’ version of a popular song does to the original.
I can’t just fill a song that’s under copyright with my own riffs in place of the originals and then sell it without compensating the owner claiming fair use because that was “transformational.”
The artist should have taken or commissioned his own photograph of Mr. Obama before firing up Photoshop on it.
Would it be fair use if he just stuck it in a graphics program and clicked ‘posterize?’ Just asking. I don’t know.
Art or not? Am I allowed to sell this if I can find someone stupid enough to buy it?
The Eyes Have It!
...Busted!
“inspired by”???
I dunno either. I'm not a lawyer, although I play one (badly) on FR...
inspired by.
Not the same photo. The wide shot has only five stars above his head. The cropped one has three more.
Because the same photographer took one at a higher angle.
Like choosing between Stalin and Pol Pot.
Aye, but it is clearly NOT the AP photo. It is a separate work of art inspired by the AP photo, but a work of art in its own right.
The AP lawyers aren’t stupid.
The artist apparently SCANNED (copied) the photo, and then began modifying it to create a derivative work.
You can’;t make a movie out of someone else’s novel, either.
Would it be fair use if he just stuck it in a graphics program and clicked ‘posterize?’ Just asking. I don’t know.
That’s the point. As I wrote..”the eyes have it”...his eyes are different. The stars aren’t in the poster, so they couldn’t be used.
lol
How appropriate. Everything else about this bastamous gentleman is bogus.
That is great.
A good comments section zinger is like a little slice of heaven. If you can get a good one in early so all the libs have to read it, you have truly done the Lord’s work.
Think carefully ~ you take a street scene. There are a gazillion people there. You failed to get a release from all of the folks in the picture, or from any of them.
Does that picture have commercial value?
I'd like to see AP's release form they had signed by the President relinquishing whatever commercial rights he had to his own image before digging much deeper into this.
Those issues were decided long ago.
Can you say “derivative work”? I knew you could.
Interestingly, had one of us done it initially and put the “Socialism” tag on it, it probably would have been safe under satire or parody.
Can I get a "Hell, yeah!" on that one?
The real question here is if anyone can take a copyrightable photograph of the President ~ which is exceedingly complex and goes way beyond the permissible use doctrine.
Quit while you’re WAY behind,
You haven’t looked at all the issues. Try, for example, using Obama’s picture in a commercial venture. Doesn’t matter who took it, there are some hurdles you have to get around that don’t apply when using anyone else’s picture (while he’s President).
Sorry, but these are not new issues in copyright (or, as an aside, defamation).
Asserting a claim and having a right are two different things. No doubt a little judge shopping can set us all straight about whether or not Obama has to sign a release to anyone to use his photograph in commerce.
Copying for commercial purposes does NOT prove that it was not fair use. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.