Copyright battle over Obama picture

JeffreyG wrote in post #7313246
That is the point to me. I don't recognize the Fairey image as even being a photograph. It's a painting as far as I am concerned........IMO the Fairey painting is disassociated far enough from the photo to be an original work.

Just read the entire action being brought against AP by Fairey, with the actual images this thread is all about, namely, the Mannie Garcia photo and Fairey's original works ("Obama Progress", "Obama Hope" etc.) and I have to say, the differences between the photo and the paintings are marked.

Here's the link:
http://www.scribd.com …547/Fairey-v-AP-Complaint

JeffreyG, I agree with you wholeheartedly - the painting(s) are highly disassociated from the photo.

To me, the most noteworthy aspects are:
George Clooney isn't in the picture, and nor is the microphone in front of Obama's neck;the turn of Obama's mouth and his facial expression are inspiring in the Fairey piece, while in the photo merely giving the message of "I'm concentrating on what that guy (out of shot) is saying"; Obama's neck-tie colour changes to balance the symbolic colours in the painting's background, while these are merely factual in the photo; Obama is wearing a badge in Fairey's painting, while badgeless in the photo; Obama's line of sight in Fairey's painting is representative of vision, determination, emotion, love for one's country, etc., while clearly just looking at the speaker (out of shot) in the photo.

As someone who loves photography and other forms of art, it's my opinion that Fairey has taken inspiration from many sources, and combined them to form his iconoclastic images of Obama; perhaps consciously or subconsciously borrowing from images of Dr. Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and JFK. I doubt even Fairey could tell himself exactly how/when he "saw" his Obama paintings formed in his mind, or what he used to create them. The Mannie Garcia photo was clearly one part of the process. But not all of it, not by a long way. And for this, and the many reasons put forward by others, the right to be inspired should be expanded not contracted by further restrictive legislature.

skygod44 wrote in post #7301423
Just a bit of fun....and no, I won't market it or make any money out of it, blah, blah, blah!

Need I say more?

Stop taking yourself so seriously, and think about/discuss this thread without feeling as if we (you) are personally involved in the AP v Fairey case.

Nice photo... and happy birthday. You don't look like your age (60). Must be all the sushi.

BillsBayou wrote in post #7303186
This is my work (minus poster text and beat to death in JPEG to protect the image):

Hosted photo: posted by BillsBayou in
./showthread.php?p=730​3186&i=i181535326
forum: General Photography Talk

I'd just like to remind everyone that:

skygod44 wrote in post #7313704
I doubt even Fairey could tell himself exactly how/when he "saw" his Obama paintings formed in his mind, or what he used to create them.

I might have to disagree. The only difference between the painting and photo (besides the stylizing) is that Fairey rounded off some edges and moved the neck/suit a bit.

DDCSD wrote in post #7314412
I might have to disagree. The only difference between the painting and photo (besides the stylizing) is that Fairey rounded off some edges and moved the neck/suit a bit.



Sorry, that is more than simply being inspired. It is a blatant copy.

It's a simple case of agreeing to disagree. I do not think there will be a common ground reached.

If I printed the Obama photo and overlaid it with mylar I could make a graphite drawing that looked similar to the Fairey image. IMO, this process and final result would be an original work.

Some people disagree with me. Some people disagree with Fairey. It looks to me as though we will get a definative ruling from the courts on this, so I await their judgement.

XterraJohn wrote in post #7313032
Do you honestly think that a layman would confuse the hope painting with the AP photograph and think that they're the same?

Looking at the two? It's easy to see.

JeffreyG wrote in post #7314473
It's a simple case of agreeing to disagree. I do not think there will be a common ground reached.

If I printed the Obama photo and overlaid it with mylar I could make a graphite drawing that looked similar to the Fairey image. IMO, this process and final result would be an original work.

Some people disagree with me. Some people disagree with Fairey. It looks to me as though we will get a definative ruling from the courts on this, so I await their judgement.

That's all we can do.

I'm a big fan of Carolyn Wright's site, photoattorney.com. She's always commenting on how it takes case law to refine what parameters we need to use to make these distinction.

This guy is a thief, simple as that - look at all "his" work and it's stolen, copied from other artists. If someone did this much stealing in writing it'd be plagiarism. I shoot for a card company (two actually) that do "painting" cards, using mine, and others, images for the inspiration - they pay for usage, they have to. Hope the AP wins, that or it will just get worse in a society that already thinks everything is up for grabs.

JeffreyG wrote in post #7314473
It's a simple case of agreeing to disagree. I do not think there will be a common ground reached.

Did you happen to see the quote that I was commenting on? I was arguing that Fairey knew exactly where he got his "inspiration" from. He didn't see the photo one day and then do his painting a week later by memory. It didn't just pop into his head randomly. He likely traced the image (this is one of his favorite methods) or at minimum had the photo right in front of him when he did the painting.

I was not arguing whether or not that constitutes copyright infringement, only that he obviously copied the image.

One thing that was not quite clear to me, did he actually USE the image to create an alternate image or was it create from scratch as a likeness of that image?

If it was based off the AP photo, I would without a doubt have to side with AP. If it was created by hand as a likeness of the photo, I would be leaning away from that feeling but still kind of on the fence.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7314225
Nice photo... and happy birthday. You don't look like your age (60). Must be all the sushi.

Thanks Ninj'....I don't feel a day over 39.
Well.....maybe today I do.

DDCSD wrote in post #7314412
I might have to disagree. The only difference between the painting and photo (besides the stylizing) is that Fairey rounded off some edges and moved the neck/suit a bit.

I highlighted your words in a couple of places, as I think that's actually rather an important part of it. First, one is a photo, the other a painting. Can we please agree that a photo is not a painting? Secondly, the "stylizing" is what takes more than the ability to push a button, and that needs to be protected.

JeffreyG wrote in post #7314473
It's a simple case of agreeing to disagree. I do not think there will be a common ground reached....It looks to me as though we will get a definative ruling from the courts on this, so I await their judgement.

Clearly!!! But that's what makes this interesting. Otherwise we might as well all turn into clones or drones or some other mindless blob of pointlessness. I'm waiting for the decision too.....

Saxi wrote in post #7315193
One thing that was not quite clear to me, did he actually USE the image to create an alternate image or was it create from scratch as a likeness of that image?....

Dunno. But since the painting is bigger than the photo, and since I can paint free-hand, and thus have experience of this kind of thing, I'd say Fairey had the picture near him but used his hand to paint something he liked, approximating the aspects from the photo he liked...
...but to get at the truth, you'd need to ask Fairey.

BillsBayou wrote in post #7314879
Quote:
Originally Posted by XterraJohn

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Do you honestly think that a layman would confuse the hope painting with the AP photograph and think that they're the same?

Looking at the two? It's easy to see.

Looking at those two, you think that a layman would be CONFUSED into thinking that a PAINTING and a PHOTOGRAPH (wherein the subject was wearing different clothes and had different colored light and a different background) was the SAME?

Are we using the same definitions for the words, "same" and, "confused?"

skygod44 wrote in post #7315469
Thanks Ninj'....I don't feel a day over 39.
Well.....maybe today I do.


I highlighted your words in a couple of places, as I think that's actually rather an important part of it. First, one is a photo, the other a painting. Can we please agree that a photo is not a painting? Secondly, the "stylizing" is what takes more than the ability to push a button, and that needs to be protected.

Clearly!!! But that's what makes this interesting. Otherwise we might as well all turn into clones or drones or some other mindless blob of pointlessness. I'm waiting for the decision too.....

Dunno. But since the painting is bigger than the photo, and since I can paint free-hand, and thus have experience of this kind of thing, I'd say Fairey had the picture near him but used his hand to paint something he liked, approximating the aspects from the photo he liked...
...but to get at the truth, you'd need to ask Fairey.

Near the end of the thread I noticed someone used an overlay for the two images, and it sure looks like he used the original image, if that is the case I would have to be with AP on that one.

BillsBayou wrote in post #7314901
That's all we can do.

I'm a big fan of Carolyn Wright's site, photoattorney.com. She's always commenting on how it takes case law to refine what parameters we need to use to make these distinction.

I had the good fortune to meet this very nice and intelligent photographer / attorney at an ISAP symposium a few years ago, I highly suggest that you get her book and keep it handy it is a great guide to the legal side of our work.

She does pop in here from time to time to see what kind of trouble we get in...lol

XterraJohn wrote in post #7315492
Looking at those two, you think that a layman would be CONFUSED into thinking that a PAINTING and a PHOTOGRAPH (wherein the subject was wearing different clothes and had different colored light and a different background) was the SAME?

Are we using the same definitions for the words, "same" and, "confused?"

Yes. Those terms are getting confused.

My point is that a layman would look at the painting and say "Oh look. Fairey made a painting of Garcia's photograph." That's what I mean as "the same". The layman would not look at the two and confuse the two as the same, but they would recognize one as the source of the other. Not "a" source, but "the" source.

The overlay animation just a few messages back makes it appear that Fairey used one of the following:

• A scanned image manipulated in Illustrator
  
• Onion paper to trace the image
  
• A projector to trace the image onto canvas
  
• A pantograph
  
• Graph lines and graph paper