Friday, February 06, 2009

This Of Course Means War!


On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.

Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.

"AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."

Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.

A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.

As it caught on, supporters began downloading the image and distributing it at campaign events, while blogs and other Internet sites picked it up. Fairey has said that he did not receive any of the money raised.

A former Obama campaign official said they were well aware of the image based on the picture taken by Garcia, a temporary hire no longer with the AP, but never licensed it or used it officially. The Obama official asked not to be identified because no one was authorized anymore to speak on behalf of the campaign.

The image's fame did not end with the election.

It will be included this month at a Fairey exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston and a mixed-media stenciled collage version has been added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.

"The continued use of the poster, regardless of whether it is for galleries or other distribution, is part of the discussion AP is having with Mr. Fairey's representative," Colford said.

A New York Times book on the election, just published by Penguin Group (USA), includes the image. A Vermont-based publisher, Chelsea Green, also used it — credited solely to Fairey_ as the cover for Robert Kuttner's "Obama's Challenge," an economic manifesto released in September. Chelsea Green president Margo Baldwin said that Fairey did not ask for money, only that the publisher make a donation to the National Endowment for the Arts.

"It's a wonderful piece of art, but I wish he had been more careful about the licensing of it," said Baldwin, who added that Chelsea Green gave $2,500 to the NEA.

Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed specially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist.

Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate.

"Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."

At first, Obama's team just encouraged him to make an image, Fairey has said. But soon after he created it, a worker involved in the campaign asked if Fairey could make an image from a photo to which the campaign had rights.

"I donated an image to them, which they used. It was the one that said "Change" underneath it. And then later on I did another one that said "Vote" underneath it, that had Obama smiling," he said in a December 2008 interview with an underground photography Web site.

Now, to me this is utter greed. I would like this to be seen in the context of the last 200 years of art, from the birth of photography, when the use of a photographic image was championed by artists like Camile Corot and Daumier or Georges Seurat...Artists who championed photography as a means to perfect their perception of reality in the mid 19th century.

Artists like Thomas Eakins who used the photograph as a method to more accuratately understand the mechanics of motion. Photography of course, in tis own right is an indisputable art form, but in so many other disciplines, like painting, sculpture and printmaking, the use of photographs that have been published to create new art is the backbone of artisitc tradition our modern world.

Andy Warhol would have been only a fashion illustrator is he hadn't been able to use images in the mass conciousness as fodder for his work.

The implications here are mind boggling to me and I think The Associated Press is crossing a line of greed which might be a Shibboleth...And to me, this means WAR!

4 comments:

mud_rake said...

Tangentially, I used to own the "Hope" poster but gave it away to an Obama worker.

Merci.

Unknown said...

Shibboleth indeed. The AP has shown itself for what it is.

microdot said...

The implications, legally are almost unthinkable. Just think of the money that could be siphoned from the sales of Warhols art...
So much of it was based on media and it generated billions for the art market and spin off licensing.
For Warhol, the quality of the original image didn't matter...it was the artistic end that he could achieve by the print making process.
I could name many prominent modern artists who use media images to generate profitably reproduced art.

Then there is the whole messy issue of photoshop, satans playground...wheee!!!!

moonlitetwine said...

I wouldn't use an AP photo. Print media is copywritten from its source. Its art is also protected in much the same way.

If the original photo was a commision job, then the photographer would certainly maintain more rights than the corporation. If the original photo was done while the photographer was employed, the corporation normally holds more rights. In either case, there is some kind of contract between the two, the artist and the corporation.

While I was an editor, I didn't keep an original photo. It was given back to the owner. Our paper simply used it. We didn't hold rights to a photo, except as seen in the paper. But, we were a small non-profit newspaper. We didn't have money to buy a photo from someone or some group.

Also, I haven't found any disqualifiers with Adobe or Microsoft. Broderbond has one, though. To me, it's like IBM asking for money, because a writter used an IBM typewriter to write a book. It's like Xerox asking for payment, when a photo is put onto Xerox photo paper.

The question is over creative copywrite protection. And, there is a standard, long held in the US for ownership of creative works. It will be necessary to go back to the artist's agreement with AP.