Derivative-Work Liability - Copyright Infringement?
Our colleagues over at Photo District News ran an insightful piece "Found: The Photo That Shepard Fairey Use For His Obama Poster, 1/15/09) about how a photograph by Reuters staff photographer Jim Young was alledgedly used to create the derivative work, as noted below:
The image above is a well studied look, by Mike Cramer, dissecting the image with before and after (and inbetween) details, and the Philadephia News blog here dissects how this came to be.
The question is though, did Fairey seek permission? Did he need to?
(Continued after the Jump)
So, for the first question - When asked by Photo Business News if Fairey had licensed the right to produce a derivative work from the Reuters image, Reuters North American Director of Photography Gary Hershorn said "The image that certainly has become iconic did so without us knowing he used a Reuters photograph as the basis for the artwork. We learned that yesterday like everyone else."
That sounds like a problem for Fairey.
Reuters' blog writes about this - Iconic Obama poster based on Reuters photo, but doesn't address the legality of the use.
So, does copyright protection extend to this?
to wit:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.Wikipedia here has some good insights into this issue. Fairey says he based it on a Flickr photo, but, to date, he hasn't identified which one. Is that a cover for a willfully deceptive statement because he knew he based it on a Reuters image? Or, was this an "innocent infringement" because someone took the Reuters-owned image, stripped the metadata/credit line, and posted it to Flickr as their own? Herein lies one of the many challenges that Orphan Works will bring about, and, frankly, one that opponents of an expansive Orphan Works bill should be using for such an iconic image. Or, with a democratic Congress, maybe not.
Which brings me to my next question - what will Reuters do? It is Reuters' prerogative to litigate, reach a settlement, or do nothing. I am of the opinion that they will do nothing, and that if they did something, Fairey is judgement proof, so why do it? Because it's the right thing? To set a precedent? To defend their rights? It is Reuters' sole and exclusive right to choose to pursue this, or to decide not to - period. Perhaps the solution is that all future uses of the work must carry a credit "© 2007 Reuters & David Fairey"? I think that that alone would be a fair and reasonable resolution to this matter, but, it does fit the "will work for photo credit" issue that has its' own set of problems. In the end, there's no easy answer.
Related Articles:
- Photo Business News - Shepard Fairey's Talk on the Obama Image
- Photo Business News - The Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey
- Photo Business News - Derivative-Work Liability - Copyright Infringement?
- PDN Online - AP Claims Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster Infringes on Copyright
- LA Times blog - AP now Hopes for $/credit for Fairey's iconic Obama poster
- Huffington Post - AP Accuses Obama Artist Shepard Fairey Of Copyright Infringement
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
16 comments:
I agree that Reuters has a tough decision. The association of this image with the Obama campaign makes it difficult to make a big stink.
Whether Fairey is judgment proof isn't really that important if Reuters want to pursue an action. To me the interesting issue is how companies and organization (including the Obama campaign) have taken the image and placed it on their OWN merchandise. Fairey indicated in at east one interview (Colbert Report) that he was not licensing the images, but was essentially allowing the campaign and others to use it as they saw fit (with some exceptions)without charge. These organizations are not judgment proof.
Of course the point is moot if the degree of change is deemed transformative - but we can leave that for another time.
And if your use of photoshop filters is really good, you and your unlicensed copy work can get put in the Smithsonian....
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Obama-poster-lands-street-artist-Smithsonian/ss/events/lf/011709shepardfairey
So let me get this right.
Obama's campaign can sell t-shirts, posters, stickers, magnets, bumper stickers, hats, books, coffee cups with this image- and take in the money, but the shooter (Reuters) can't get what they are owed?
Just asking.........
Hardly fair-use. It's not a fine line at all - infringement is infringement. I don't see the Elvis estate grinning and bearing it. He should have sought permission and if he knew anything about this business (i.e. join a professional group) he would have and not risked having his pants sued off.
Life's a bitch - Go Obama!
I don't see any difference between Fairey using a photo as the basis for his illustration from a painter using a photo as the basis for his or her painting. They are two different works. Fairey's is derivative perhaps, of course, but he was using the Reuters photo as a REFERENCE, as thousands of illustrators and artists do with photo reference material daily.
I'm sure if he could have had Obama sit for him, he would have. But obviously, that was not an option.
Clearly the illustrator has no leg to stand on. There is a long list of photographers who were awarded monies for uses just like this. See Art Rodgers vs. Jeff Koons. Koons made two sculptures based upon California photographer Art Rodgers image of a couple holding a lot of identical puppies. Each sculpture sold for $250K. Rodgers was awarded half and sculptures are 3D, more different than 2D.
Andy Warhol was discovered to have used an anonymous photo of a flower for a series of screen prints. When the amateur photographer came forward, Warhol settled out of court. (allegedly for a set of the prints worth 6 figures.)
Many other cases are out there.
As far as Obama's campaign and related merch. They can be liable. The Elvis Presley estate used photographer Robert Smiths photo for years from a 1957 show. Final settlement in the millions.
Many illustrators use photos as a base for their images and do not pay. They should. Just because it is common practice does not make it right.
Reuter's should sue to set the precedent. They have the weight to make it stick. (at least in some circles)
Now it gets interesting, how many copyrighted photos do you think are in the gallery of Paste's Obamicon.Me? http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/
I posted the same question on another site, but seems appropriate to ask here as well...
Do you think that this initial public confusion, even among industry professionals, and the similarity between the photos, combined with what you reference above to motor drives and event shooting, may serve to actually undermine or dilute any potential claim?
Sorry; in the above post I referenced a comment about motor drives that came from a different blog. However, I think that the relevance still stands as at such political events, the press are blasting off images by the hundreds, and often, there will be many similars.
(Please excuse the confusion.)
THIS JUST IN: Source of JOEBAMA Campaign Image Traced To Thomas Hawk Photo.
This posting should be updated with the finding that the original photo used for the image may in fact be one from AP. See: NEW - Another (Better?) Obama Poster Source Photo.
Given the evident confusion concerning the actual source of the original, any attempt to bring a lawsuit would be foolish
Hmm, I mucked up the link there somehow. This is the correct one:
NEW - Another (Better?) Obama Poster Source Photo
Like Obama Shepard is a tool of the same. Don't forget if you change something its still the same only changed. Like new and improved detergent.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
I see the SuperTouch critique of Mark Vallen's critique of Shepard Fairey has shown up here. It is only fair to mention Brian Sherwin's critique of the SuperTouch critique of Vallen. (Lot of critiques going on over Shepard Fairey)
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html
I have to agree with Sherwin. Many of Fairey's references are not fair use. To be fair use the images by Fairey have to comment on or parody the work that is being referenced and the majority of the public must be able to make that connection when viewing the art. Viewers should be able to know what is being commented on or parodied if fair use is done in the way it should be. Anything else is infringement.
Fairey has referenced works by artists and photographers that are not widely known so it is not fair use. People did not make the connection that Fairey was commenting on Mannie Garcia's photograph of Obama with Hope just like they did not know he was commenting on a poster by Rene Mederos when selling shirts with a slightly altered version of the Mederos poster. (he settled out of court on that one)
If Shep used Mickey Mouse or the Pepsi label people would make the connection and it would be fair use. (but he would not use a Pepsi label anyways since Pepsi is one of his clients). That is how fair use and parts of fair use like transformative works work. Fairey just finds a cool image and uses it look at how he used the SS skull on a shirt and did not even realize that it was the SS skull until he tried to sue Walmart for copyright infringement because they infringed on his copyright of the skull.
SuperTouch and the ObeyGiant site claim that Fairey is open about where he has referenced from because some of that info is in the Supply and Demand book. That is a poor defense to use for fair use because people should not have to pay $59.95 for a book about Fairey's art just to be able to find out the connection in his work. That is not how fair use works and I'm glad people are starting to point it out!
The only reason Jamie O Shea wrote the SuperTouch critique of Mark Vallen's Fairey critique is because two blog posts on the Boston Globe site just brought Mark Vallen's critique back into the spot light. Like Sherwin says it looks like they are just trying to do damage control before Fairey's big solo exhibit.
花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車公司,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮租車資訊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪旅遊網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮民宿,花蓮入口網,花蓮民宿黃頁
Post a Comment