Copyright infringement and pop culture is something we don’t think much about in this day and age of forgery and fakery. The latest issue comes from the use by street artist Shepard Fairey(I first learned about Fairey when he appeared on a recent Colbert Report.) who designed a poster with an image of President Barak Obama “owned” by an Associated Press photographer. The Associated Press says in news articles that it wants to be compensated for the use of the photograph, and it wants to be credited with taking the original photograph on which this Fairey’s artwork is based. In other words, AP is charging copyright infringement. The stylized image of Obama has been described as Warholesque, referring to the late pop artist Andy Warhol. Which made me think of Warhol’s use of those Campbell soup cans in a series of art works he created. Weren’t those soup can images owned by Campbell. Turns out, the answer is yes. Campbell’s did sue Warhol for copyright infringement. However, they garnered so much free publicity from the artistic rendering of the soup can, they eventually dropped the lawsuit.
In this present age of “cut and paste,” it’s becoming more difficult to know where the lines are drawn. In other words, when it comes to intellectual property, we are no longer certain what is legal to reproduce and what is not. Perhaps if Fairey didn’t sell the images he created, there wouldn’t be much ado about this, but because commerce is involved, and I don’t want to underestimate the rights issue here, AP seems to have a legitimate gripe. Whether they will go the Campbell’s route—feasting on the publicity—I don’t know. With digital images so readily available over the Internet, law professors with an interest in copyright are very busy these days. The legal concept of fair use does not grant absolute right to the originator of the intellectual property. The extent of those rights depends on how the original work is utilized, among other things. In the case of the Fairey work, use extends beyond the Obama campaign poster to a book cover, art exhibit, and to a permanent display at the National Portrait Gallery in D.C. From my initial readings on the issue, I don’t think AP is going to go after Fairey in court; street artists rarely are worth suing. But the point AP is making has to be taken seriously, and should remind us that what seems “free” over the Internet may actually be someone’s property.
4 comments:
I have been meaning to write a comment regarding this blog post for several days now. I recently found a website, http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/ where you can actually digitally upload a picture, which will be transformed into the "Obama Hope" poster. I was aware of this website prior to our discussion regarding digital media rights and our investigation into who exactly had the rights to this picture. While I believe the Associated Press had full rights to this picture, I can see where Andy Warhol's painting of the Campbell soup cans would give much publicity to Campbell. Moreover, as one can see from the website, the picture has received much attention and has enhanced the American's people's curiosity using such digitally advanced tools that they have been able to transform their own images like that of Obama. Since our class last met, Shepherd Fairey, the artist of the Obama Hope poster, was arrested in Boston while walking into a party at the Institute of Contemporary Art where he was supposed to be the star guest. He was arrested on two accounts of outstanding warrants and was being held at a police station. Although Fairey received a personal letter from Barack Obama himself thanking him for the artwork and telling him how privileged he felt to be a part of his art work, it seems as though his "muse" for the poster, could not help him out of this debacle. Police have yet to describe the nature of the outstanding warrants, but it has been noted that Fairey has been arrested at least 14 times. Maybe he will get a pardon from his famous supporter? Or maybe another celebrity will have to confess to their crimes and deal with the consequences for once.
I have been meaning to write a comment regarding this blog post for several days now. I recently found a website, http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/ where you can actually digitally upload a picture, which will be transformed into the "Obama Hope" poster. I was aware of this website prior to our discussion regarding digital media rights and our investigation into who exactly had the rights to this picture. While I believe the Associated Press had full rights to this picture, I can see where Andy Warhol's painting of the Campbell soup cans would give much publicity to Campbell. Moreover, as one can see from the website, the picture has received much attention and has enhanced the American's people's curiosity using such digitally advanced tools that they have been able to transform their own images like that of Obama. Since our class last met, Shepherd Fairey, the artist of the Obama Hope poster, was arrested in Boston while walking into a party at the Institute of Contemporary Art where he was supposed to be the star guest. He was arrested on two accounts of outstanding warrants and was being held at a police station. Although Fairey received a personal letter from Barack Obama himself thanking him for the artwork and telling him how privileged he felt to be a part of his artwork, it seems as though his "muse" for the poster, could not help him out of this debacle. Police have yet to describe the nature of the outstanding warrants, but it has been noted that Fairey has been arrested at least 14 times. Maybe he will get a pardon from his famous supporter? Or maybe another celebrity will have to confess to their crimes and deal with the consequences for once.
This was a discussion that we had that really did irk me. I know that plenty will disagree but I heres my two sense.
As someone who has been trained in studio arts nearly my entire life, I have grown to accept and appreciate all forms of art no matter where their inspiration may be from. I am bias, I know.
In this particular situation, it is not as if the artist just re-printed the same exact picture and called it a picture that HE took. I understand that AP owns the image and that a trained photographer took it, but let's be serious it is a picture of Obama. There are thousands upon thousands of them. If the artist didn't use that one he would have used another.
That's not to discredit the work that the photographer has done. It is a good picture, but it is a picture of our President. The artist merely used it to create his own work. And, as the artist and the photographer are both artists in a sense, I think that AP should have been a little more understanding of the situation.
One could argue that that image was taken from anywhere as we see Obamas face everywhere these days.
I just think that the AP should have bigger things on their hands to deal with. If anything, the photographer should be flattered that his image is being used and is nationally recognized.
I understand wanting a portion of any revenue generated from it, but at the end of the day, it is art sometimes in art its hard to distinguish boundaries of what you can and cant use for inspiration.
This was a discussion that we had that really did irk me. I know that plenty will disagree but I heres my two sense.
As someone who has been trained in studio arts nearly my entire life, I have grown to accept and appreciate all forms of art no matter where their inspiration may be from. I am bias, I know.
In this particular situation, it is not as if the artist just re-printed the same exact picture and called it a picture that HE took. I understand that AP owns the image and that a trained photographer took it, but let's be serious it is a picture of Obama. There are thousands upon thousands of them. If the artist didn't use that one he would have used another.
That's not to discredit the work that the photographer has done. It is a good picture, but it is a picture of our President. The artist merely used it to create his own work. And, as the artist and the photographer are both artists in a sense, I think that AP should have been a little more understanding of the situation.
One could argue that that image was taken from anywhere as we see Obamas face everywhere these days.
I just think that the AP should have bigger things on their hands to deal with. If anything, the photographer should be flattered that his image is being used and is nationally recognized.
I understand wanting a portion of any revenue generated from it, but at the end of the day, it is art sometimes in art its hard to distinguish boundaries of what you can and cant use for inspiration.
Post a Comment