Copyright battle over Obama image

[Gem]

I thought this was an interesting read on copyrighted stuff.

The Associated Press is claiming compensation for the use of one of its photographs to create the most iconic image of Barack Obama.

The red, white and blue portrait by Shepard Fairey appeared on thousands of posters and T-shirts and is now in Washington's National Portrait Gallery.

Lawyers for AP and Shepard Fairey are reported to be holding talks.

Mr Fairey's attorney says it was a case of "fair use", which allows exceptions to copyright law.

Continued at Copyright Battle over Obama Image

[jjeling]

This is a very interesting debate and will surely have an impact on us photographers in the states and around the world probably. It depends on your point of view. There is a photographers perspective and a painters perspective. Photographers will probably recognize this as a copy of the original. Copyright infringment. Its a very bad thing. No photographer in their right mind wants this to happen to them, especially on a scale this large. As a painter though, they usually need a model. It is kind of like the Mona Lisa. Mona Lisa would probably be a rich woman from that picture, but it wouldn't be from suing Da Vinci.
It is best said by David Bailey, “It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary.”
I'm not saying that we are better than painters, so if there are any of you out there, I apologize, but that quote is basically the reason the AP is upset about the guy using their picture as a 'model' but I do like that quote.

[mindforge]

Washington's Portrait Gallery - probably fair use because it is a museum.

If it is a painting of the picture, I believe that it is not copyright infringement. If it was copied and then processed digitally from the picture to look like a painting, I believe that is infringement. Not sure here though.

If they plastered the picture on stuff (not the painting, the picture) then they have violated infringement laws.

[Marko]

Seems like theft to me and if I was the Associated Press, I too would be seeking compensation.

[kat]

Personally...and please don't hate me...

but wouldn't you think the guy would of changed a bit of this and that so it wasn't "identical"..lol

It's like doing an essay...you can read some books and put what you read into your own words or copy the words from the book and put a notation of the copy.

[Marko]

We are SO on the same page Kat - I have a BIG problem with this kind of stuff.

For me it's theft. I mean should this guy have the right to sell "my house" for full price even though all he did was add a new roof? He is not the builder and he should have to ask my permission and pay me good money to use my house. It's one thing if he wasn't selling the image, but the bum is making a killing. This is a rip off and it gets me damn peeved.

If you disagree with me - that's cool - let's rumble

[mindforge]

Ok. I stand on both sides. If it was an oil painting, one of a kind, I would be perfectly fine. This looks like it could have been done in Photoshop or Corel, using the image. That to me is theft. The photographer was the artist of that image.

Again, if he has a real painting he did using that picture for his likeness, that is fine. If he used Photoshop to recreate the same image, to me that is theft. There is a difference, at least to me there is.

[Marko]

Here's a review that I like
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

[mindforge]

When I was in high school, I used to do stuff like this. I would take an image of Hitler or something that said "Think, Slave." and make posters and post them on the way to school. But, I never really took credit except with my friends. I never took credit for the images. I hand made them too, cut out other material, enlarged with photocopier and then when it was all done, I would use my dad's blueprint copier and large format picture to print it or 5-6 sometimes.

There was never a drop of profit made off of these, I actually spent lunch money to make them, hell I didn't want to take credit. We were using wheat glue to post them. I did create a little logo I used for the posters.

This guy is plaguerizing, plain and simple. I did it too in high school. I did some hand work but most of it was cutouts from newspapers and magazines. Sometimes, history books would fall victim to the enlargement feature of the photocopy machine at the library. What I did was plagurism. I made no profit, I was 16 and really was just having fun creating stuff to shock people into thinking. I think I went the wrong way about it though.

I think he should be punished at the full extent of the law for violating free use laws. If this was a school assignment, fine - but he used it for commercial purposes. It will be interesting to see how this works out.