Copyright battle over Obama picture

speedypalomino wrote in post #7331971
I understand his point, I just dont agree with his methods. I'm a dairy farmer who doesnt have much free time...and as far as the "native Americans" go....I as well as many others have fought long and hard, many...to their last breath to uphold the Constitution of our land

You know, I actually agree with you (truth be told). Fairey is going about it the wrong way, but none of us are "The AP" or Shepard Fairey, and sometimes, it does us good to stir things up a bit, and consider our/my/your opinions...just in case they/we/you/I are being taken for a ride by those "in power".
"Dairy farmer"? Thought you were a marine...
"Native Americans": Glad you realised I was just messing with you. I know the US education system teaches kids over there all about how the natives were treated when first come upon, and I know you guys are trying to "pay them back" in some way. Quite right too, and, good on ya!
As to your point about "fighting for the constitution", I can't say it better than these guys;
"I think Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War...."
Mark Twain.
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."
George McGovern

rdenney wrote in post #7332427
I seriously doubt that the AP is pursuing this for the sake of money....I suspect their motive is to make sure we maintain a clear meaning of what constitutes copying....and ripping stuff off the Internet is pandemic...We really undermine the value of photography as art when we declare that copying a photograph using paint is different than copying a photograph using, say, a Xerox [photo-copying] machine.
But I'm also sure there is much that doesn't meet the eye here....

Hey there Rick "keeps coming up with great points" Denney! Of course, I'm sure that you're right. This is much more than "just about money". It was frivalous of me to agree with the previous post by S.Horton, but in the future, restricting art based on photos more than now will open up more opportunities to sue. Hmm, maybe I should re-train as a lawyer....[I can't believe I just wrote that....shame on me...]

rdenney wrote in post #7332565
....The AP will win no points with either a jury or a judge if they went on the attack mode with a full lawsuit without having provided reasonable notice to their suspected infringer....

Maybe that's why they looked like leaving the "fight" quiet as a mouse...at first.

LBaldwin wrote in post #7334115
Actually the AP were quite fair with him from the outset and nearly had it settled out of court when Fairey went and filed against the AP. The guy has nerve that is for sure.

Nerves of steel! Maybe he should re-train be a marine

rdenney wrote in post #7332427
We really undermine the value of photography as art when we declare that copying a photograph using paint is different than copying a photograph using, say, a Xerox machine.

Rick "doubting that anyone will win financially except some lawyers" Denney

Oh, jeez! I gotta say this, so let the flaming begin. I have serious doubts that the vast majority of photos taken by PJ s are "art", especially now that technology has advanced to the point of giving us the "spray and pray" mode. I place in the category of exceptions to this belief the "photos for the ages": The South Vietnamese official executing the Viet Cong fighter in the streets of Saigon; the little girl on the road, naked, after just being napalmed; and, most lately, the passengers standing on the wings of the US Airways Airbus in the Hudson River. I'm sure I could go on and on given the length of photographic history. But the vast majority of "spray and pray" photos are a dime a dozen and not art, IMHO. Art to me is more what Fairey did.

Now, having said that, if I were a PJ and had a winner photograph out of a spray and pray sequence, or just an ordinary single that was "infringed", would I or wouldn't I fight the infringement? I more than likely would. Why? Because the law says I can, not because I would feel I deserve it on some kind of moral/creative/artisti​c basis. And that, I believe gets to the point of what Skygod has said. Maybe the law is wrong/bad law. It certainly does seem, in a case like this, that it is stifling creativity rather than promoting it.

Just my $ .02 worth so no flaming necessary.

BobOh wrote in post #7335776
Oh, jeez! I gotta say this, so let the flaming begin. I have serious doubts that the vast majority of photos taken by PJ s are "art", especially now that technology has advanced to the point of giving us the "spray and pray" mode.

No disagreement from me. And it's not just photojournalists. Lots of art photographers cause me to just shake my head in wonder, as I'm sure my photos do for them.

But read back up a few posts where I said that the legal issue is not about "art". That's the red herring.

My point was that the artist who drew portraits in pen and ink for newspapers in the 1840's though of himself in the same terms as modern photographers. He's just there to provide a visual reference in support of the story. He might not have even used the word "artist" in describing himself. But if someone made a copy using paint (instead of pen and ink), it would still be a copy and they would have recognized that immediately. The reason they would have recognized it as both the drawer and the painter would have been thought "artists" by average folk.

When we, as photographers, argue that painting can't be a copy of a photographer merely because it is a painting, and then when we support that argument with the description of painting as allowed all sorts of subtle enhancement, we are really saying that photography is not art and painting is art. I don't think we want to say that.

Of course, there is such a thing as bad art, as my own self-awareness compels me to mention. And there is also the use of photography by most non-artists, which is merely to record events. Photojournalists claim to do so with an artistic skill, but that's a matter for the viewer to determine. But the person who paints a truly horrifying rendering of a pot full of flowers is no more an artist than the family snapshooter, except that they take themeselves a lot more seriously. But we might think of the sketch an engineer makes on a napkin as art, when its role is literally no more serious than taking a snapshot of a piece of equipment. If we take photography seriously as art, we should not pose arguments that put us in the mere recordist camp. If the engineer's casual sketch can be protected by copyright, even if the copy made of it uses computer art, then photographs should be protected even if they are copied using a markedly different medium.

But, as I said, that's a separate argument from the legal issues here. Copyright law has no interest in art, only in originality.

Rick "whose wife has kept some of those napkins" Denney

skygod44 wrote in post #7334331
"Dairy farmer"? Thought you were a marine...

LOL,,,, I am both!! my end of active service was in 92... once a Marine ALWAYS a Marine ya know!!! I work on tha' family dairy early mornings and nights,, and during tha' day,,, I am a Union electrician,,,, ... I'm a bit of a workaholic...

speedypalomino wrote in post #7339567
LOL,,,, I am both!! my end of active service was in 92... once a Marine ALWAYS a Marine ya know!!! I work on tha' family dairy early mornings and nights,, and during tha' day,,, I am a Union electrician,,,, ... I'm a bit of a workaholic...

Wow! Interesting life...and yep, I guess you are a workaholic.
But, since you're up early and out late, you should add a photo to my thread:
"Walk a mile, take a photo, save the planet".
Trying to get folks to see as much of the planet as possible while not using a car, plane or train, and to get fit in the process while sharing some knowledge of their local area, while being creative with their cameras!!!
Take a look!
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=646352

Back on thread;
This is getting a long way from the thread topic, it simply being "Copyright battle over Obama picture", but I feel that BobOh has clarified why this thread is so emotive. Of course, none of us are directly linked with Fairey or AP, but we are all photographers. Some pro, while most are not. Some feel that copyright is copyright is copyright. While others want to open this up to include what the medium is - photo v painting v pen & ink etc - then, out comes a load of worms, with some pretty deep ideas about what constitutes art being thrown about, all in an historical context.

Really interesting and thought provoking stuff!

I still maintain that the outcome from the Fairey AP case will/could cause a more fundamental shift in thinking if the AP win, and the fallacy of the "objective point of view of the law" with regard to copyright, derivative works, inspiration and much much more, has the potential to damage what we are as humans.

speedypalomino wrote in post #7329842
it looks to me,, as if this jack@ss "street artist" (just another name for a punk that likes to tag things with a can of spray paint!) ran the photo through an illustrator program,, printed them out on cards to make his STENCILS!!!! so he could run around putting this crap all over everything!! all this thinly veiled political obama celebrating is getting rather old here,,, :O/... and no I am not a right wing whacko, nor a left wing Marxist,,, I am a Patriot,,, I have fought for ALL Americans rights!

yea, i'd be careful because your comments can be perceived to be incredibly offensive. as a resident of both the washington dc and baltimore area, street art in my opinion is an integral part of our culture here. there are many parts of the city that are decayed beyond recognition, but the spray paint on the walls and fences are a form of expression that really lets you get a feel for what life is like living here. i know plenty of street artists, and they aren't just a handful of "jack@sses" out to vandalize anything they can get their hands on. many of them just want to get their message out, and have their views and ideas expressed. not everyone can book exhibition time in fancy art galleries to share their thoughts; street art is simply a means to an end. i'm sure as a marine you can understand that the right to freedom of expression is vital and the fact that some of these artists chose to use paint instead of knives and guns to express personal fears and grief is commendable in itself in a city like baltimore.

in any case, as someone pointed out earlier this thread isn't a discussion on whether fairey is a jerk, but rather the legal and ethical implications are of his work. i just needed to make a quick point about the value of street art since nobody else seemed to comment on that statement.

ps: many of the artists that i've mentioned are commissioned by businesses and individuals in the area to paint murals or even purchase the right to use walls. it would be wrong to consider them punks just because they use a medium that differs from traditional canvases or prints.

alt4852 wrote in post #7341770
yea, i'd be careful because your comments can be perceived to be incredibly offensive. as a resident of both the washington dc and baltimore area, street art in my opinion is an integral part of our culture ........
ps: many of the artists that i've mentioned are commissioned by businesses and individuals in the area to paint murals or even purchase the right to use walls. it would be wrong to consider them punks just because they use a medium that differs from traditional canvases or prints.

Well put.
There also needs to be a clear distinction made between "street art" and simply picking up a spray can and scrawling "screw the government" across the City Hall's outer wall at 3am. The former can and usually does transmit a real message to the viewer, usually socially-based. It has a "point" and is not merely a recorded moment in time - unlike many photos. And it takes a lot of skill, practice, talent, you name it. The latter however, is vandalism, perhaps at the most immature end of the scale.

Look at Fairey's other works:
He is clearly NOT a vandal.
This is obvious by the fact that he always has a message.
Usually socio-cultural in intent and overtly political.
Vandals don't give a fig about who reads their scrawl. They just want to damage and deface.

When I was a tagger my name was "Ace".

I use to write "Ace" on all the playing cards... MAN did it made poker confusing.

I agree with skygod. There is good street art and there is annoying tags and scribble.

"I love Cindy 4 eva" is not art


(well... depends on what Cindy looks like I suppose...).

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7342089
When I was a tagger my name was "Ace".
I use to write "Ace" on all the playing cards... MAN did it made poker confusing.
I agree with skygod. There is good street art and there is annoying tags and scribble.
"I love Cindy 4 eva" is not art
(well... depends on what Cindy looks like I suppose...).

Look! This is a serious thread about serious things which some very serious people are trying to take seriously....so no more of your puerile humour!
Especially when it makes me giggle like a school boy, because.......
........Cindy was HOT, HOT, HOT!


[I'm soooo lucky Missus Skygod is doing Core Rhythms and didn't see that!!!!]

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7342089
When I was a tagger my name was "Ace".

I use to write "Ace" on all the playing cards... MAN did it made poker confusing.

I agree with skygod. There is good street art and there is annoying tags and scribble.

"I love Cindy 4 eva" is not art


(well... depends on what Cindy looks like I suppose...).

And how Eva looks as well......

BobOh wrote in post #7335776
I have serious doubts that the vast majority of photos taken by PJ s are "art", especially now that technology has advanced to the point of giving us the "spray and pray" mode.

To me, it's not about art, it's about rights.

The "Spray and Pray" method has a distict advantage over the type of photography I shoot: He's there. I'm not. Sometimes, all you need to do is show up for work.

What Fairey did was devalue the presence of Garcia at the event. Garcia owns the photograph because he was there and pressed the button. Garcia could have been firing the shutter constantly or he could have taken only two or three photos. Regardless of how many shots he took, that one photo was the one that the AP ran with. It is the one photo that Fairey used (dispite his legal filing to the contrary). There was something about the photo that inspired Fairey's painting/copy. But Fairey didn't take the photo. Nor did he get permission to use the photo.

Put a hundred photographers in front of an event and you get hundreds of photos that all look similar. That's true. However, each of those photographers has a right to the photos they capture. If someone wants to make a painting of any of those photos, they'll need to get the permission of the owner of that photo. It's theirs. They deserve to be compensated regardless of the artistic merit or the uniqueness of the shot.

skygod44 wrote in post #7342018
Well put.
There also needs to be a clear distinction made between "street art" and simply picking up a spray can and scrawling "screw the government" across the City Hall's outer wall at 3am. The former can and usually does transmit a real message to the viewer, usually socially-based. It has a "point" and is not merely a recorded moment in time - unlike many photos. And it takes a lot of skill, practice, talent, you name it. The latter however, is vandalism, perhaps at the most immature end of the scale.

Nobody ever claimed that art and vandalism were mutually exclusive. Nobody ever claimed that art, however expressive and emotive, cannot also be illegal for one reason or another.

I would feel better about inner-city graffiti if it wasn't tied so much to gang markings and other destructively illegal activities.

Rick "not an issue for this thread" Denney

well this is such an interesting thread to stalk.....

/grabs his popcorn and watches the action!

skygod44 wrote in post #7342018
Look at Fairey's other works:
He is clearly NOT a vandal.
This is obvious by the fact that he always has a message.
Usually socio-cultural in intent and overtly political.
Vandals don't give a fig about who reads their scrawl. They just want to damage and deface.

So, lets say I make up a stencil and start spray painting this on blank walls all over town. Would you consider me a vandal or an artist? I would consider myself a vandal and a copyright infringer. But you are saying that since there is an overtly political and socio-cultural message it would be fine and you would have no problem with your work being used like this?

I suspect you would have an issue with it. I know that I would.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Robbierob wrote in post #7345344
well this is such an interesting thread to stalk.....
/grabs his popcorn and watches the action!

Stop being a wuss and join in!!
None of us are actually involved directly in the case (as far as I can tell) so what's the harm in an intelligent (well, mostly) discussion?
Go on....Robbie, tell us what you think.....