The AP is claiming copyright infringement of one of their photos, (on the left), and the now-iconic Hope image by designer Shepard Fairy. Here’s the legal argument from each side:AP: “The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission.”
Shepard’s Lawyer: “We believe fair use protects Shepard’s right to do what he did here.”
I’m sure you do. Obviously, there’s no doubt it looks like the original—but is it illegal? If you look closer at the background of the poster, there is a whole bunch of other stuff going on. Plus, the addition of a word like HOPE does change how you view the basic image. Adding any word in there like he did and you interpret his expression differently, and arguably changes the editorial nature of the photograph to that of artistic statement.
(If you want to dig deeper, you could even argue that the photographer was influenced by other famous figures who came before. Photographers, like any designer, artist, etc., are influenced by everything they’ve seen, even subconsciously.)
Regardless, obviously both lawyers disagree on what constitutes fair use. Did AP want a piece of the profits from the designer’s work after seeing how popular it became? Likely. Did Shep not change it enough? Probably. I side with the designer usually, but Shep, really, maybe if you flipped it in Photoshop first? Appreciate your lawyer’s position, but it sure looks like you’re borderline here.
Which is it. Do you vote for Hope or the AP?
4 comments:
Imagine the coincidence. A photo of Obama looks like a picture of Obama.
Doesn't the AP have photos of Obama at every possible angle? SF's mistake was saying how he remembered it being an AP photo and wishing he could thank the photographer. Though, personally, I think Shep's has the pres looking up at a slightly higher angle. 2% more HOPEful, I'd say.
Doesn't a person ultimately have rights to his own image? I know legally this isn't always the case, but from just a sense of being reasonable here. If Obama had no problem with an image of himself being turned into a propoganda poster reminiscent of the communist revolutions (not judging here, just stating it like it is) then why should the AP take issue over it. It's just unseemly.
But all that aside, the right thing for the artist to do is at the very least credit the inspiration and cut the photographer in on a percentage of the profits (if any) that are derived. No matter how I personally feel about this, copyright law is what it is and has to be respected.
@BK - Maybe Pepsi can join a class action with him.
@CW - Just wondering why AP waited so long to say anything. That poster has been out for some time now.
@Bob - Don’t forget pain and suffering.
Post a Comment