(CNN) - The Associated Press is claiming ownership of the most famous image of the presidential campaign: Shepard Fairey's “Hope” depiction of President Obama in red, white and blue.
The image itself, which now has a home in the National Portrait Gallery, is based on a 2006 AP photograph — and the news service says it deserves credit, and a share of the massive profits Fairey's depiction has generated.
“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 released Wednesday. "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."
Anthony Falzone, Fairey's attorney, says fair use protects his client's rights from using the photograph as a basis for his image. The concept of fair use allows breaches of copyright law based on the degree to which the original image is used, among other factors.
Fairey, a Los Angeles street artist, has said he found the image online and created his now-famous depiction in early 2008. He says he has not profited at all from the work, which he donated to the Obama campaign.
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
It's probably not a coincidence that the AP has very prominant Republican operatives in charge.
This is stupid. Having monetary problems during the economic crisis much AP?
Yeah, this is a really cool picture.
AP officials must be smoking something if they think they're going to win this one in court. Guess more papers are dropping AP than reported.
Another example of greedy corporatists at work. AP probably needs a spare million to give to it's CEO.
do they want to shoot him ? Give me a break !
As a professional photographer myself – I would be disappointed if I found that someone used an image of mine for their own purposes without any inquiries for copyright release. This is stealing. Think of it as plagiarism through art.
The AP should go out of business, they're a third rate agency at this point.
Did President Obama make a big issue about his likeness being used? EXACTLY! There's more things important to deal with! get over it! This country has bigger fish to fry if we can afford the oil!
Wonder why they waited over a year to file this? Maybe because President Obama WON? Associated Press, get over it. He used the outline of your photograph to create a painting. How is it different for you to use a photo taken of a grieving mother in Gaza taken without even her permission? Duh.
What joke this picture has turned out to be so far. So the far the Obama administration has been very similar to the WWE, very good marketing and packaging with very little substance behind it. Sorry Dems, every day is bringing a new debacle.
Looks like the banners that the communists paraded with in marches in front of the Kremlin.
AP really needs to let this go. Clearly the original image did not have the impact as interpreted by the artist Shepard Fairey. We wouldn't even be talking about this had he not created this work. Ap is just being greedy and wants a piece of the pie. Shame on you AP.
The AP should be ashamed of themselves!
The AP should kiss my .... never mind.
How is this different from the Associated Press taking pictures of people around the world without their knowledge or consent, and without paying them one dime, and use those images to sell papers?
whatever...AP, go cover some news...
As cool as Shepard Faireys images appear, the unfortunate reality is that the majority of the content in his images are stolen–not just referenced, but nabbed and used without giving credit to the source. he's a hack for a good cause.
Notice that one telltale word? "DONATED". Which doesn't necessitate getting any profit from whatever you donated. If you created it and intended to make profit from it, you should have protected it better. Period.
when something is changed 10 / 20 % -it becomes original. I can see where he got the idea from , but these people must really need money.
Money Money Money Money
All the republicans want is ALL of the money
Good grief, AP...how cheap can you get?
The PAINTING is only a DEPICTION of the photo, but it is not a reprinting of the original. It would be as if celebrities sued impersonators for using their images without royalties or politicians sued political cartoonists for capturing their essence to sell newspapers. Heck, Andy Warhol's famous soup can painting would BELONG to Campbell's using the AP's reasoning. In fact, stretching their logic to the extreme...ALL forms of parody would be lost because the artist would be forced to pay the creator of the original artifact.
YES! I love our capitolist ways! Lets exploit a symbol of hope! Keep on keeping on! Regan should explode...oh wait...
During the heady campaign, Obama followers had no trouble hacking email, creating phony videos, engineering caucuses. Why not stealing too?
This is what the RepubliCrats (both) have done for years – it is not a Change.
The article says the artist donated his efforts as if that makes it all OK. So if I stole money to give to the holy campaign, it would be OK?
It is a huge joke that Obama nows promotes his religious faith but tolerated all manner of fuzzy moral actions and hate in his followers.
Actually, it's pretty basic copyright law. He should have asked permission first. I'm sure it would have been granted at little or no charge, then he would not be in this mess. If you wait until after you use someone else's work, then they have the advantage of knowing that what you did with it was actually valuable.
How American is that.....always gotta be someone wanting to get in on the profits.....
Right, it's all about copyrights- which apparently weren't infringed until the picture made enough MONEY to get AP's attention, else they would have had their lawyers on the job a long time ago instead of waiting until now.
CNN, I'm going to continue posting this until it gets on the blog...
How different is it for the Associated Press to take a picture of a grieving mother in Gaza without her knowledge, permission, or paying her a thin dime, and use it to sell papers here?
I have the same poster but mine says "Dope"
Obama should hold the rights and get the money.
He is a thief if it is not his original depiction
So what if it was based on a picture, Fairey should get the credit. Doesn't the AP make enough money making "something" out of "nothing"? It was a great painting, if the photo was so important to the AP then they should have expressed that earlier!
Pete, give it a rest! Not everything is a "vast right wing conspiracy". There are laws in this country that protect the creators of images, music, lyrics, books, etc. People sue over infringements like this all the time.
WHY is this news?? Please report what's really going on. Thank you.
Shepard Fairey is an awesome artist and an interesting character. Did campbells soup sue Andy Warhol? AP is full of it.
WE THE PEOPLE.........
Yes the picture is nice, however, we have more important issues at hand.
This litigation / allegation is Stupid.....DON'T YOU HAE SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT TO DO?
If, indeed, this is an AP image (100's of photo's have beed taken of B-Rock in this exact pose though) then why all the fuss NOW??? This particular image has been used through out the Campain, especially by MoveOn.org. WHY NOW is this a problem?
AP, should stick their head back in the sand
NOW THEY COMPLAIN? they missed the boat on this one a LONG time ago. Seriously, they're only bringing it up now cause they think alot of money has been made, truth be told everyone's been using it for free by finding it online and just printing it out for their own uses. Fairey used a picture he found online and just made it into an outline version, it's definitly not a new style of art, and like he says, he gave the image away, thus not making a profit. the AP needs to take a good look at themselves for being such doorknobs.
My understanding from years in the ad business is that you can't take someone's photo and use it for your art without getting permission first. I see copyright infringement here (unfortunately).
Love the final art but it is based on someone's original art/photo.
Come on Shep, Obey!
AP should make that image and copywrite a gift to the nation and the proceeds could go to the national treasury. Somehow, somewhere we must have pride in our nation and instead of constantly taking we should give back. At present everyone is offering some type of Obama stuff hence we should have an official Obama image which belongs to the nation and benefits the nation.
Oh yeah! Fairey is getting a lot from this art.
He may have donated the proceeds to the campaign, but he is now a nationally known name and hence the prices for all his art are now much higher.
Was the AP photo colored like this? Did the photo have Hope under it? Was it broken down to several value plains? Did it have Pres. Obama's logo on the photo? If all these were added and manipulated by the artist, then AP doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing is original, not even AP's photo. Did AP copy Pres. Obama's pose from another artist? Too many questions, throw the lawyers a bone and tell them to go home.
It would appear that the Associated Press is hurting for cash. The Fair Use Doctrine clearly protects the artist in this instance. Andy Worhol went through something similar with his paintings of Campbell Soup Cans. This will only serve to damage AP's reputation.
reminds me of 3rd world antics.....
dont put him on any pedestal. the artist also has a team of lawyers enforcing his own images copyrights. Hes an industry himself and is no better than the ap who is suing him.
This art is protected by fair use. This case may be similar to the famous Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima photo by Joseph John Rosenthal. During that time period many individuals got creative with the image. They still do to this day. Sometimes organizations need to learn how to call off the dogs in order to stay relevant.
Thou shalt make no graven images...
Surely the AP has other, much more important fish to fry.
Pay the AP their money!
he broke the copyright law. this is an open and shut case. pay up.
CNN need to make a correction. The "fair use" doctrine in copyright law does NOT allow breaches to copyright – just the opposite. When a work is covered by "fair use" that means that work in fact is NOT a breach of copyright. Also, when "fair use" is applicable, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "degree to which the original is used". Fair Use is based on things such as satire, educational use, research, etc.
Do some basic research CNN.
As the oldest wire service in the country, AP should know better. Clearly, this image falls under a protection of copyright called "transitive values in art" which means that, as long as you change something enough to make it your own, there is no infringement. Know your mass comm. law, Associated Press.
money is the root of all evil
He "found" the image online. Like it was just lying around. And now Obama's profitting from the AP's work. Shameful.
However, the AP, like most main stream media, helped get him elected. So deal with it AP.
Here's a better idea. Let's have media outlets pay for any elected politicians and celebrities images. Let's have the ability to copyright those and see who starts to cry fowl! Anybody should have the right to copyright their image. The paparazzi would love that.
Money, money, money. Shameful.
The people's president, but those posters sell for over $hundreds of dollars, nobody's profiting? someone is, the price should be about 5$, 50c for the sticker, 75c for the greeting card.. this depression/economy serves notice that profiteering hurts the broader economy.. this image was an easy to make photoshop 'posterized' photo .., the real creativity is 1 the red.blue unity, 2, obama himself is the real creator, and we the people are the ones who hold him up.. it's our photo as much as anyone elses.. AP is right to note they took the photo, but please, quit fighting over the leftovers..
Gee CNN, why don't I see you reporting that Senator Graham just slam dunked Obama?? Why are you not reporting this?? You don't want your Messiah critizied??? It is only beginning.
Wether Fairey's poster meets the requirements for fair use should be determined by a court of law, or agreed upon by the parties.
If a photo I took was used without my permission by someone else I would expect to be compensated as well.
Farey, as an artist should have shown more respect for others' Intellectual Property.
As a professional photographer myself – I would be disappointed if I found that someone used an image of mine for their own purposes without any inquiries for copyright release. This is stealing. Think of it as plagiarism through art.
AP give it up, what a joke. What a waste of time.
Hmmm...this from the news source that errantly declared McCain a winner of one of the debates? Yeah, I think we know how clear-headed and objective they are about Obama receiving campaign donations as a result of this painting. Imean seriously, the only person I ever saw claim that McCain won one of the debates was Bay Buchanan and everyone knows she's completely loopy.
I saw this image walking by a billboard the other day, but instead of the graphic that is on his lapel in this photo, the one I saw showed a swatstika (sp). This isn't the first time I've noticed the comparison between 'he who must not be named' and President Obama. Can someone please explain the correlation? Thanks in advance.
Rob,
the reason they're only complaining now is that AFTER Obama won a few enterprising bloggers set on a quest to find out what the poster was based on. When they eventually found the original photo the photographer responsible became aware of the violation.
Fairey may not have directly SOLD the poster but it's disingenous to state that he has not made a profit from it. What do you think is going to happen to Fairey's art going forward? Do you think that having made THIS poster is going to make his other art MORE or LESS sought after?
As far as I'm concerned, he stole a photographer's image, plain and simple.
As a Photographer, I feel that this is infringement on the copyright owner. I don't feel that the image that was used was modified enough. It's still the same composition and pose as the original picture. Just coloring on it, and adding text at the bottom doesn't make it your own.
Fairey was wrong if in fact he did use an AP photo without asking permission regardless if he profited from it. Regardless of fair use people must take a step above the law...when in doubt of ownership get authorization for use or re-use of content or find different content. How would he like it if someone took his original photo/art and "borrowed" it to make an iconic work and pass it off as original art. Many photographers and digital artists (me included) rely on our unique and original work as our livelyhood. Example: my company's registered logo and patented arm profile image was pilfered by some YouTube member to use as his home page icon. His buddy found it slapped the other kids username on it and bragged up the new logo "created" by his friend. This potentially could dilute the company's image it's worked for years to build or cause market and customer confusion if the user continued use beyond YouTube. We reported to YouTube via the click report that the image was in violation, however we had not seen it taken down right away.
Furthermore, they should get money from the artist for the infringement and then donate that money to one of Obama's favorite charities.
Was Obama all red and blue like that when the picture was taken? Were those words down there in the original image? No. Those were artistic additions. You can take somebody's original work and if you make enough substantive change to it it becomes *your work*. The AP's lawyers don't seem too qualified to me if they've advised their client to sue this artist. This is most assuredly fair use of the original image.
HOW DARE THE AP do this to a portrait of The Enlightened One, His Most Holy On High. The AP has committed an incredible sin! Thou hast sinned, AP! Eternal damnation be unto thee for thine actions against anything involving The One.
Don't you know that if you don't let this portrait to be displayed wherever, and try to claim credit for it, that the US will never get out of this recession?
Well, if he didn't make any money himself, but he "gave" the image to the Obama campaign, then he had to have claimed that he was the sole owner of the work. Therefore, he is liable for whatever the estimated worth of the image was to the Obama campaign. If the image was on a mug, how much of the mug's value was due to the image being on the mug rather than just wanting to support the Obama campaign by buying campaign issued items. There is no clear way then to assign a monetary value. Hence, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, money to sue for. However, going forward, that image should now have a cost associated with it so that any future earnings are shared by the artist and the AP. So hopefully, going forward it is a win-win. It was clearly a donation of the artist and, unwittingly, the AP to the Obama campaign. And for that, we thank you.
You knew it was only a matter of time before people started claiming ownership of the Obama image and suing for infringements. I say throw his face on apparel and jumpstart the retail economy.
If you look at the photo and the poster side by side, the similarities are small. The poster is not a copy of the photo in any way, It's an original work. Shame on you greedy AP!
Here is a kid trying to surive and ap wants to take it away give the guy a break ap has enough money dont br greedy........................
LOL ! they did'nt expect obama to win.ur loss AP
This should be a shared credit – for the original photo and one for the artist that painted it.
Save a lot of legal wrangling and share the credit.
This is really sick. I hope AP is pummeled in to submission by a Biblical flood of letters from people who are sick to death of pure greed.
Seems to be to be just a paiinting of President Obama. How can the AP claim ownership of someone's likeness? President Obama should sue the AP for violating using his image without his permission.........
Practically every piece this guy's ever done has ripped off someone else's work without attributing credit. Sometimes of whole cloth. He's an art-stealing T-shirt industry, not a "street artist".
remember how AP did their best
trying to sabotage Obama campaign
smear article after another smear article after anoter
all the way up to the end?
i bet the filthy spin machine called AP is full of
AIPAC thugs and neo-con thieves.
If he finds the picture online, prints it out, sticks it up on his wall and then creates an illustration using it as a likeness from which to work, is that copyright infringement?
You may be technically correct, AP, but geez, your photo by itself is just a photo. Nothing special about it. What he did with it is what makes it interesting and noteworthy.
I love that portrait!! but the law is the law, if he didn't have permission he is in the wrong
Easy – just give AP some credit and a share of Fairey's profits (which being zero is easy to calculate)
i don't think the AP has a case here at all. maybe if the guy blew up the original photograph and just glued it on canvas. but we're talking about paint here. the guy used an image as a reference for his artwork–it's not the original photo.
Did Warhol face these kinds of lawsuits?
remember how AP did their best
trying to sabotage Obama campaign
smear article after another smear article after anoter
all the way up to the end?
i bet the filthy spin machine called AP is full of
AIPAC thugs and neo-con thieves.
CNN, i dare you to post this
if you are NOT a mouthpiece of AIPAC and neo-cons.
It's a masterpiece. AP should own it if they are the one with it.
Stupid Petty Nonsense!! Grow up AP.
Why has this come out now. Why did not not complain when Obama was not yet the President? I think they are being greedy. Shame on them.
It will be interesting to find out the outcome of this. As an artist, I know that we use photography as a source of inspiration sometimes – So I wonder where the law is on this. What evidence is there that it is for sure an AP photo, could there not be hundreds of other photos identical to it? Afterall it's not THAT creative of a photo that can be distinguished.
Everybody wants a piece of the pie. That's how these fat cats get so fat!
While it may be a AP photo originally, I believe it has been changed enough by the artist to be his own work now. Don't we have other things to worry about on this planet?
Unless Mr. Fairey took the photo himself, he has to get permission. You can't load a photo in Photoshop, mangle it, and then use it without getting permission of whoever took the photo in the first place.
Surely though, "Photo by Shepard Fairey and the AP" is not nearly as exciting as "Photo by Shepard Fairey".
.... isn't anything and everything posted on the web in the public domain?
I think the AP is looking for financial gain. If they had been so concerned, they should have had the image copyrighted.
Am I supposed to believe that AP has the only picture of President Obama looking that direction from that angle? I find it hard to believe that one AP photographer managed to stand where nobody stood, and get him to hold his head as he never held it before.
By the time Mr. Obama finishes his four- or eight-year term, there will probably be millions of pictures of him. Is AP going to claim copyright infringement on every photo that captures that angle?
Unfortunately, given the clear resemblance between the final picture and the original, I gotta side with AP on this. I love the painting, but Fairey should have sought official permission to do a derivative work.
This is unbelievable, especially considering that this guy is a street artist who has made NO PROFIT from this work. But, if the AP suit is successful, I guess it would be alright for the subject of any AP news article featuring their picture to sue AP for a piece of the profit.
The realm of copyright law is really unclear when it comes to the fair use doctrine. As I understand it, it has to do with how much the image was altered from the source material and how different the creative intent of the source material is from the new image that used it as a base.
I'd say that Fairey is in the clear with this one.
Really? The AP painted it?
When in doubt, always ask PERIOD
Oh, please. This is like Campbell's Soup complaining about Andy Warhol's paintings. It isn't like he was selling the AP photo. The theory AP is advancing would basically prevent anyone from ever painting or drawing something from a picture. Besides, I think they've waived their rights for waiting so long to raise the issue when it's been underneath their noses for a year now.
If this is a crime, it shouldn't be. He's not photo shopping the original pic. It's his own interpretation of the photo, and he didn't sell it.
Wow – that's pathetic. Shepard Fairey is an amazing artist and has done portraits of literally HUNDREDS of pop culture and political figures. You can't tell me none of those were taken from a real photo, and nobody has ever come after him before.
He also runs the "Obey" clothing line. His art started with the Andre the Giant "Obey Giant Posse" propaganda. He wanted to see who would buy things just because of their logo without knowing what it even stood for. He would put huge murals up or have people put his stickers everywhere just to peak people's curiosity and have them wanting to buy this brand, not knowing what it is. He is an artistic and cultural genius. LEAVE HIM ALONE AP!!!!!!
Reminds me of a lot of the art from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, that was used by our WW2 ally on the eastern front in Europe. Good for rallying the comrades to the nation's cause and crush the bourgeoise.
I agree. If the law is not protecting me from others then I should be able to ignore it when it is protecting others from me. That is the 'fairness doctrine'. I cry 'not fair' when someone does it to me but it is fair and OK when I do it to another because I always have a good reason or I can just say rotten things about the party I offended.
That's cool. I look forward to our future living together.
This has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 5.7 My best yet!
It is so far from the original photo that their claim is baseless. The image is now an artistic representation and not someone else's work.
AP is a Republican hack. An artistic design has not basic for been a copy right. He could have draw the art from any number of photos. AP will loose this one and they deserve to. The paper is the print media version of FAUX (FOX) news and it is sad, as a military officer AP was good reporting until like 3 years ago and most certainly in the last year!
Much ado about nothing. The Associated Press isn't crying foul over other photos, just the one that has a famous painting behind it. Sounds like greed to me.
The AP case is wholly without legal merit under copyright law fair use provisions and case law (e.g., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music). Of this, Mr. Colford is surely well-aware. Rather, AP is only using the threat of legal action to extort licensing fees to which it is not legally entitled, and that is as unconscionable as it is despicable.
Randy: fair use is evaluated under §107 on four separate factors. Fairey's painting was not of an overtly commercial nature; the AP photograph was one of many of this widely-photographed public figure; Mr. Fairey's painting was a derivative work rather than a manifest copy; the commercial value of the AP photograph was not diminished by Mr. Fairey's painting.
AP = Absolutely Pathetic
@randy: um, no.
If Fairly used the image as his work and just painted over the og image, it is infringing–however from what has been said, he only took inspiration from the photo, and if you look at the line work it is obviously not a line for line copy, it is an interpretation of the og image.
I say let them try to get the money. If they do, maybe they can actually hire some staff writers for the VIrginia AP outlet. You hear that, Virginia AP? You suck donkey balls, particularly your sports section. Hire some staff!
What a joke! If it was such a problem, why didn't they scream when it was first introduced? I mean, wouldn't the original photographer have recognized his/her own work? Hey AP, you're supposed to write the story – not BE the story!
Just ban all photographs of Obama
Oh, and what is up with all the people saying that AP is Republican controlled? Don't we constantly here crap from Republicans saying how incredibly biased and liberal the media is? And isn't AP the largest media outlet? You know, CNN and AOL and many newspapers draw a lot of their material from the AP. So you can't have it both ways. Either the AP is an evil liberal biased hack, or it's a money-hungry Republican hack.
God, the public is so stupid.
My opinion of the AP just plummeted as will many others if the pursue this.
Hey, Soldier 4 Obama-
I was gonna ask what country you are from. Now I wonder what planet. The fact is no matter what your politics are copyright laws stand.
Partisans from the left and the right suck.
America is for Americans. NOT Democrats or Republicans.
Greedy Scumbags
I don't think AP contributed much to that image. The artist could have easily used any one of 10,000 other photos that float around on the web without attribution. I think that the court should award AP $100 and tell them to find something serious to do.
*** AP will loose this one and they deserve to. ***
Actually, as a photographer I know the law on this, and it is crystal clear. It is a derivative artwork based on a photo to which the AP owns the copyright, and the AP is 100% correct legally speaking.
The AP is probably more upset that his rendering has garned more fame than their "original" picture...I am sure they saw this when it first surfaced during the campaign..they should have asked him to stop using it THEN instead of after the fact...sounds like they are just bitter...
I dont understand, obama giving power to the people to murder a helpless unborn baby, A Christian knows, do not murder is one of the ten commandments.there is no reason to kill, unless someone is trying to kill you. rape, incest, etc is bad, but not enough to kill over. If he was smart he would have kept his signature off of that ban, now it is on every murdered baby in the future. he is as guilty as the parent of the baby. everyone in America should have to see the murder of an unborn baby. maybe they would change their minds how horrible it is.How their brains are suked out & how the head is crushed so it can come out of the mom, & to hear that the baby does feel the pain of their death. they WILL HAVE TO ACCOUNT ONE DAY FOR IT to GOD
Several of us down here in MS are running short of tissue in the outhouse, can we get a few of those.
Let the games begin!!
The AP is being ridiculous. He used it as inspiration. It's not as if it was paint by numbers. If all proceeds were given to the Obama campaign is the AP going to file a claim against the campaign funds remaining? The AP looks really petty and slimy because of this ruckus they're raising.
Don't think so. The AP ought to read up on fair use, then put it's energy into real reporting.
who cares about copyrights? Democrats don't have to pay taxes or obey any other law. After all, we elected Obama so let him rule.
*** The paper is the print media version of FAUX (FOX) news ***
Uh, the AP is not a "paper" brainiac, but thanks for the rant about something you clearly know absolutely about. Those are always so refreshing and informative.
They just... decided?
It seems kind of frivolous, but I guess those are the rules.
Let's see...billion dollar AP demands settlement with L.S. Street artist......perhaps to be "Fairey"...he should take an AP picture of Rush Limbaugh, superimpose dollar signs and fire behind it...and call it NO HOPE.
The artist admitted he copied a photo found online. AP has the copyright to their image. It cannot be copied in part or whole. AP is the not the bad guy here. The artist is on the wrong side of the law. He either knew what he was doing was wrong or he was terribly ignorant.
As a designer, artist and photographer who generates original ideas everyday, I depend on intellectual property laws to protect my work from the likes of this type of person. Talent is no excuse for what he did. His attorney will help him get through the case. It is simple – he stole AP's image. AP was violated. Let's get it right.
This painting falls under Fair Use doctrine and will the painter will likely be protected from paying out damages because of that. See Wikipedia's entry on "Fair Use", particularly the section on the four tests of whether something is fair use. One of the tests discussed is how much of the original work is included and another is how the value of the original work was impacted. In my opinion, this painting will actually increase the value (not strictly financial value) of the original photo.
FYI, everything on the internet is copyrighted, whether it says so or not. That is law and more people need to know that especially those coming into our print shop with materials they did not get permission to use. Filling out the copyright paperwork only increases the effectiveness of your defense of that copyright.
However I believe an artists interpretation is covered by Fair Use and AP like many are out for a quick buck during these tough economic times.
Not to worry. In four years, he will have such a mess of things, no one will want his picture.
Most people, in this world, are out to make a buck. This guy, according to the story, didn't make a dime. He donated all of the profits to the Obama campaign. A tax deduction is all I can see this guy might benefit from. Does the AP want some of that?
LOL – AP is a Republican operation! LOL – what a bunch of nonsense !!
It shows a lot of ignorance, if you believe that statemment!
Give it away. It's an ugly image anyway.
Duh
Duh,, actually it isn't an open and shut case.
HEY CRACKPOT CNN, are you even going to discuss the contraversial things that REP. Sessions of Texas said???
The Sessions Scandal is more interesting than who owns the rights to the HOPE portrait of Obama.
people assuming with this president
Ty and Co. naming the dolls and likeness
This photograph as an obvious interpretation
pay people for their work, it is no different under this president
things are the same, well... except thank goodness the nightmare of the last 8 years is gone, now comes the cleanup, this is going to be expensive
shame on you Bushies
What a joke. The neocon AP is just trying to cause trouble ( again). Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur and they're trying to fatten their bottom line.
If some idiot judge thinks this has merit, the AP should sue Andy Warhol's estate for the paintings of Marilyn Monroe, Mao, Jackie O and the rest.
I hope Shepard Fairey countersues and winds up owning the AP.
Leave it to the AP to not even make the effort to confirm that this type of case has already been tested in court and favor fell on the artists (the Shepard Fairy side). See Robert Rauschenberg.
Sarah for Prez> Um. In what say is Obama profiting from it? That's just silly. As silly as saying "sarah for Prez.", so I guess I should consider the source!
Being a professional photographer myself, I would have to say that if anyone took any image of mine and painted an exact reprodution with some color changes on it and began shopping it around or planned on "giving it away" to any cause of their choice, I'd be pursuing copyright infringement charges as well. Probobly why he "donated" the painting in the first place; he knew he had no rights to sell it.
This has nothing to do with the AP being short on cash [I highly doubt they are] and I'm sure the statute of limitations is much longer than two to three years on these types of issues. I dont' think that Mr. Fairey deserves to be locked up, but his "art" significantly borrows from another work, much more so than the 'fair-use' clause allows, and that makes the recreated piece unoriginal [at best]. The creator[s] of the copied piece need to be compensated, and Mr. Fairey needs to find other sources for his "artistic" inspiration, end of story.
I don't think the AP stands a chance of winning this one. If you look at the case of Richard Prince's "Spiritual America" which was simply a re-photographing of Gary Gross' photo of Brooke Shields and the fact that Prince prevailed, I really don't think the AP stands any chance at all. Fairy's level of authorship and re-working of the original far exceeds the efforts of Prince (IMHO).
STREET ARTIST RULE!!!
to "Sarah for Prez", hope you dont' mean Sarah Palin for prez because she lost and she will never win. She is the biggest laughing stock of the world.
How come it's okay for someone to steal someone else's work off the internet and make a profit, but it's not okay for TY to make two dolls that in no way resemble Sasha and Malia physically but have their names? At least TY didn't copy them from someone else. They just used two names who happen to be the same as Obama's daughters and I don't know, but I don't believe Michelle has the copyright on their names. If you had seen those dolls on a shelf somewhere and you had no idea what their names were, exactly how many of you would have said they were copies of the Obama girls?
Does AP understand that 100% of $0 profits is still $0? They're only making the lawyers rich.
Should have served them with a cease & desist order a year ago.
Now, it seems a bit opportunistic and petty, and frankly, silly.
@ Sarah for PREZ:
IT'S THE AP. THEIR PHOTOS END UP EVERYWHERE, DUMBBELL.
Listen to all these stupid peope, knowing nothing aobut the fair use law, but shooting their ignorant mouths off anyway, (in favor ot the AP). America is too stupid to be governed.
Andy Warhol's Iconic Campbell's Soup Can Painting did not get flack as much as this guy is getting for his artistic rendition, I don't see what the problem is. Sounds like greed to me by another corporate entity that doesn't know how to use their money appropriately for the greater good.
The painting is an artist's rendering of something that was found in a public domain. It's not like he traced it or copied it exactly...he used it as a jumping off point. If he had stolen the photo and blown it up and then tacked "HOPE" on the bottom, it would be one thing. But the end result is so stylized that it could have come from anywhere...and the concept/color scheme/wording was Fairey's alone. The AP needs to back off and chill out with that foolishness. If they had such a huge issue with anything about it besides the money, they should have said something ages ago when the painting first went public and could be seen all over downtown LA.
The painting is an artist's rendering of something that was found in a public domain. It's not like he traced it or copied it exactly...he used it as a jumping off point. If he had stolen the photo and blown it up and then tacked "HOPE" on the bottom, it would be one thing. But the end result is so stylized that it could have come from anywhere...and the concept/color scheme/wording was Fairey's alone.
The AP needs to back off and chill out with that foolishness. If they had such a huge issue with anything about it besides the money, they should have said something ages ago when the painting first went public and could be seen all over downtown LA.
It is interesting to me how similar the Obama image is to the famous 1960 photograph of Che Guevara by Alberto Korda which has been reproduced on posters and t-shirts. Who was this AP photographer, and was he influenced by Korda? The images are both iconic.
The AP has been on hard times lately as newspapers across the country drop them as a news source. I think this is just a shameless attempt to make some money off of someone else's work and talent. Perhaps if the AP had maintained their journalistic integrity and not started editorializing their "news" reports they wouldn't have to stoop to such things as this.
so i have a question.... if a street artist paints a picture of a woman eating and apple on a park bench and decides to sell it and then the picture gains fame does that woman have the right to demand a portion of the profit..... where does the line get drawn.... do i have to ask the homeowner permission to paint a picture his victorian style house...... the the AP is trying to make a quick buck through a settlement but guess what there hasnt been one i say they get half of the proceeds (50% of 0=0) so theyll actually lose money after paying a lawyer...
I hope the artist wins, but some of the arguments about taking an image from the internet being OK are just not true. A copyrighted image is copyrighted, regardless of whether it is online or in print. The real question is whether AP holds copyrights to that picture.
Someone forgot to give Teresa her meds today.
Red, white and Blue???? Mine looked like it was red, yellow & blue. Maybe there's 2 paintings!
I guess AP is looking for a Bailout package of their own...come guys, just do good stories, going the legal route for revenue is a very bad idea...
Since Obama is a brand name, maybe merchandise of him should be in the stock market. That's one way to stimulate the economy. If "Yes We Will" shirts went on sale today, I bet half of the country will have one by the end of the day.
Good Lord what a bunch of nutjobs on this blog! Forget the picture we have bigger problems to solve.
I find it entirely impossible to believe thatthis starving artist has not profitted from this painting. That is impossible. He is only saying that in an effort to get the AP to back down. That painting has sold hundreds of thousands of t shirts, posters, mugs, and on and on. No way did he donate all of the proceeds to the Obama campaign. Even if he did, the campaign has been over since November and he is still selling t shirts so where is that money!? What a liar
Making him look like a third-world socialist dictator on the poster infringes on my right to not think about my president as a third-world socialist dictator. He is acting like a socialist dictator in his first couple of weeks in office but we all "hope" that will "change."
Hey, if he didn't make a profit, then he donated nothing!! Oh, but he admitted he donated his work to the Obama campaign. Is he saying his work is worthless?? Check his tax return, bet he's going to get a BIG deduction on the donation line.
Isn't this just like a Liberal to steal someone else's property and claim it for their own?? They do that with my paycheck every week
Amazing how everyone wants a slice of the pie they didn't bake.
test
barak you look clueless. 66% and dropping. honeymoon is over my naive friend.
Theft is theft. News agencies pay a lot to use AP photos. Just because the photo depicted a public figure and was on public display doesn't make it public domain. Street painters have just as much obligation to check for any licensing or copyright as do publishers or broadcasters.
@Pete, yes it's true. It's all part of the Council of Twelve's grand world conquest plan. Now that you know, you must be assimilated. Resistance is futile! Assimilate! Assimilate!
Whoever created should be taken before the foreign leftist leader that its basic design was stolen from in the first place. Maybe there they would find true justice !!
Whoever said the AP was neocon really has a lot of learning to do.
This is a load of horse manure. The original photo is just Obama's face at an angle in front of an American flag. To say that Fairey must ask permission to use that particular head tilt is ludicrous. Obama's image has been produced and reproduced so many times in the public domain – how can the AP say they own it? Fairey drew his own image, colored it, superimposed hope, etc. made it into a piece of art rather than simply a photo of Obama. I think he's put enough work into the piece that it's clearly his. He could have based it on ANY photo of Obama and it would still be unique because of how he did it. The AP needs to get over it.
@Pete, yes it's true. It's all part of the Council of Twelve's grand world conquest plan. Now that you know, you must be assimilated. Resistance is futile! Assimilate! Assimilate! Assimilate!
OBEY!
It's not being "used". The artist painted an original portrait looking at that picture which was out in the world to be looked at. Did Warhol compensate Cambpells for that soup can drawing?
February 5th, 2009 2:41 pm ET
to "Sarah for Prez", hope you dont' mean Sarah Palin for prez because she lost and she will never win. She is the biggest laughing stock of the world.
=====
Next to that do nothing community organizer who is unfortunately in office now...
February 5th, 2009 2:41 pm ET
to "Sarah for Prez", hope you dont' mean Sarah Palin for prez because she lost and she will never win. She is the biggest laughing stock of the world.
=====
Next to that do nothing community organizer who is unfortunately in office now...
Well, the AP took a photo of Obama who, ultimately, is responsible for the image as it is HIS image. Copyright infringement or not...what a greedy bunch of buggers (the folks of the AP who stirred up this trouble). If they want credit, how about the artist just saying "thank you" to the person who took the photo and be done with the matter. We teach children in preschool to act better than this.
Well, the AP took a photo of Obama who, ultimately, is responsible for the image as it is HIS image. Copyright infringement or not...what a greedy bunch of buggers (the folks of the AP who stirred up this trouble). If they want credit, how about the artist just saying "thank you" to the person who took the photo and be done with the matter. We teach children in preschool to act better than this.
Noah (you idiot)....
Fairey is HARDLY starving. Why don't you take a little time to research him? He's an amazing and very well known artist. Just because it says "street artist" does not literally mean that one lives on the street.
I hope Michelle gets a painting also. It would be very cool. She is so cool. I think it would all help us feel better about ourselves. Wow, what I just said was cool. Michelle for Pres in 2024. Cool.
Since my last name is Blanks that means my picture is "clear". LOL – are you going to make me a celeberty? If you do, my wife & my daddy will slap you. umfff
Mississippi Mike you're funny.....Go back to watching cartoons
All art yearns to be free.
AP doesn't have much of a shot with this one. One of the key concepts of Fair Use is the "transformative" aspect of the derivative work, which in this case is pretty obvious, to the point that some people actually identified a different picture first as the template for the icon.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Campbell v. Acuff-Rose: "the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."
I wonder what the average age of people posting in here is.
You all sound like silly children.
Has the Associated Press ever heard of the Fair Use Act? This is disgusting and shows what corporations do to the little man and small businesses. This is a poor attempt at trying to cash in on a best selling image of our president that was used during the primary. I know this because a copy was in our office during the primary as we volunteered for Obama in PA. Why did not AP say something then? Because Obama had not been elected yet and its value was not what it is today. Shame on you AP!
The AP is just trying to make a buck!!! It's GREED!!!!! I hope Fairey wins this lawsuit, because is a down right shame!
The original didn't have HOPE on the poster either. The gentleman who created it was contacted by the Obama campaign to change it to HOPE.
The AP will lose this one, as they should. I suspect they'll waste a lot of money on lawyers that would be better spent on proofreaders and fact-checkers.
I can empathize with the photographer. You can imagine my surprise when my artwork was used, without permission, for a travel magazine cover. Hope they resolve the dispute.
The artist has a history of plagiarism and this is just another example of how he has built a career off the backs of other peoples work..
This is an exact copy of a photograph with some minor, and very juvenile Photoshop work added. No freehand or creative "art" work here people.
Also, to say he has not made money from this is as insincere as the work itself.
My only comment would be that AP are a bit slow in objecting to it's use and that makes their claims a bit suspect.
But to say it's not ripping off the originator is just not true.
So the image is a fraud. Is the man?
This is a funny story as i was photographing an event and apparently a AP photog was right next to me. (we got the same picture from the same angle. Down the road, the AP tried to claim that photo as there as well. My lawyer make quick work of their worthless claim. Don't they have anything better to do then bother the little guys......
Apparently not
AP should get a cut, but this is definitely a case where Fair Use could be used as a defense.
My inlaws are both IP lawyers. But I'm not an IP lawyer, so take what I say grain of salt.
obama-mama February 5th, 2009 2:57 pm ET
Mississippi Mike you're funny…..Go back to watching cartoons
==============
And you go back and wait for your check!! Ha ha
Another example of a Huge Company stepping hard on a little guy trying to earn a buck. please!
That is a frivolous stupid claim. He hasn't used the photo you dumb dumbs. He used the image on the photograph, and President Obama IS the image.
leave the guy alone and make an honest living – know how to?
By AP's logic, Obama should sue the Ap for using HIS likeness.
Its called FAIR USE.
As a photographer I have to side with the AP on this one.
Fairey may not be making any money per se from this painting but he has received non monetary benefits as a direct result of it. The notoriety alone of a street artist getting a painting in the national portrait gallery is huge, especially when you factor in the fact that the painting is of a very popular president.
I once took a picture that anyone can take if they stand in the correct spot at the correct time of day. One of my coworkers was an artist and asked if she could paint the photo since it was so beautiful. I agreed, provided her a high quality digital copy and then bought the painting from her (it's really very nice). Had she simply taken my photo, painted it and sold it I would have been quite angry.
Has the associated press compensated Obama for the photographs?
Is the AP close to bankrupcy or something? Can't think of why else they'd be doing this. Maybe Obama should sue them, it is his image that they took. Shouldn't he have ownership of his own image?
What a cheat Fairey is! He simply used a wrestling poster he created for Andre the Giant in the 80's which had the same portrait style except "OBEY!" on the bottom. Perhaps that is the hidden truth of Obama. Hope is just a thin veil for obey!
Get a real job Fairey and quit ripping off the AP.
From Hope to Hype to OBEY!
I say "let's go away with all Obama pictures"!!!!
I don't hear about the AP offering any $$ to those they use photos of when they do a news story. The big corporations are just so used to the Bush/Cheney era where they were the only ones with rights. Get over it AP.
When's Obama going to get his paychecks from the AP? He owns his face, right?
Totally rediculous. AP must really be hurting if they have to pursue a case this weak. Or maybe they have too many attorneys with nothing to do.
My Lord, everyone wants their name in lights. AP your photo was nothing until Mr. Fairey's creatively enhanced it. You should thank him instead of suing him.
He captured something AP failed to do and made it his own.
AP you're a little late to the party since this image has been around for over 3 years now.....GREED....
Keep GOP in EXILE!!
The AP can copyright a photograph, but not a pose. Whether the art is based on the photograph or not, there is no use of the photo in the artwork. The AP does not own Obama's likeness. He needs to defend this in court. He will win. Whoever's advising the AP on this needs to be fired, it's just plain foolish.
The corruption now being unveiled around the Democratic party and anything associated with it is astounding. Are there any democrats that are not tax cheats or thieves?
WHO REALLY CARES???????
February 5th, 2009 2:57 pm ET
I hope Michelle gets a painting also. It would be very cool. She is so cool. I think it would all help us feel better about ourselves. Wow, what I just said was cool. Michelle for Pres in 2024. Cool.
Matthew Detroit – maybe that makes you feel better about yourself. What a sad person you must be if a painting of michelle obama helps you feel better. Personally, I take responsibility for my own happiness. Get a grip. These people are not saints or saviours. (unless of course you are one of the fortunate ones to get your mortgage and gasoline paid)
The AP should be ashamed. Two syllables: GREE-DY.
@ Adam. It does not look like a picture for the Kremlin, but rather like a picture used by some 3rd world country dictator. Which the new USSA (United Socialist States of America) is quickly becoming
Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!! LOL
To Lauren the Designer – I agree with you Theresa is seriously in need of some meds.
Theresa – He doesn't condon abortions he just feel that it is the woman decision and not the government or man. Get over yourself, making it sound grusome doesn't make a person change their view on it. Abortions will stop; when we take the responsiblity of closing our legs to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Make sure you stress this to your daughters, nieces, and any other female you think maybe out there serving up free sex. Prevention is the key to us putting a stop to not only abortions but starving babies and homeless babies.
This is crap! Sure there is the whole thing of intellectual property and what not, but the person who took the picture got paid for their work. The AP got paid for their work. Someone saw the picture, and created their own thing "based" on the premise/idea/image. It is not the AP's thing to own. If we can no longer base ideas on other things, nothing can ever be improved and virtually all creation will cease.
Hey Californian – Shepard has paid Andre the Giant to use his image – he is not a political figure. Political figures are pretty much owned by the public. So go eat some fiber and relax. Shepard Fairy is amazing – a generous and nice man – given more to charities than anybody on here I guarantee it.
That poster doesn't look like a photograph to me.
I've got to go with the poster who has figured out that AP stands for Absolutely Pathetic. And let's take their argument further. Come on AP, photographers. It's time reimburse the individuals whose photos you take in the name of news and then sell.