AP sues over use of an image of Obama

Hi All

I spotted this over here on BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/world-us-canada-12720159 about an artist using an AP image to make a derivative work.

So maybe for anyone who has had such 'abuse' of their copyright by an artist there is or will be caselaw (so to speak) to take action and win but surely equally importantly is if the likes of AP or newspapers wish to use images without payment especially to get away with after the fact...........???

The is a line in the report about such abusof usage as devaluing the image!

Usually people love underdog; but this time I think that AP is right.

This was a really old story with lots of twists that turned out to have a muddled ending. Last year, when Fairey's lawyer quit the case claiming that his client had lied to him, and when it was revealed that the image Fairey claimed to have used was not really the image he'd used, it looked like a real cliffhanger.

Part of the issue was also that AP's copyright was not clear either--it was never settled that the original photographer didn't still own the copyright. The photographer appeared to be willing to allow AP to fight the battle without clarifying that matter...and I'm wondering if that issue affected AP's agreement to settle this case.

Using a photograph to "create' a painting, especially via PhotoShop just sounds like a derivative work. And therefore is a copyright violation.

Title 17 Chapter 1 section 106 "§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

Wayne

Part of Fairey's original legal argument in this case was that he used only a very tiny part of the original photograph (Obama's face from a much larger crowd scene), so the tiny portion used gave him a "fair use" defense.

Then it was later proven that Fairey lied about which picture he took the image from--he actually took it from a closeup of Obama in which his work was derivative from nearly the entire image. That was when his original lawyer bailed out.

Shepherd Fairey is a rich and successful hack. All of his work is the same, images that aren't his that he does the same color scheme thing to and usually adds the word OBEY in there.

A thief in a silk suit, still smells of Horse Mud!

lol at calling shepherd fairey a rich and successful hack.

that's a funny joke.

The only thing fairey can create on his own, gets flushed when he's done.

mikekelley wrote in post #12031873
lol at calling shepherd fairey a rich and successful hack.

that's a funny joke.

He's good as what he does even if what he does isn't good?

Village_Idiot wrote in post #12032838
He's good as what he does even if what he does isn't good?

He's good if others think so, and hire him.

In this case, look where his work is, then decide whether people who matter think he's good. If they do, it is so.

As for the AP - Sure, they're correct, but c'mon, given the itty bitty teeny weeny amounts they pay photogs, saying not getting revenue for t-shirts is harm to the 'industry' is just not credible.