Slashdot Mirror
Obama Photog Says "You're Both Wrong" To AP & Fairey
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Fairey v. Associated Press, the Associated Press said artist Shepard Fairey's painting had infringed its copyrights in a photo of then-President Elect Barack Obama. Fairey said no, it was a 'fair use'. Now, the freelance photographer who actually took the AP photo — Manuel Garcia — has sought permission to intervene in the case, saying that both the AP and Fairey are wrong. Garcia's motion (PDF) protests that he, not AP, is the owner of the copyright in the photograph, and that he never relinquished it to AP. And he argues that Fairey is not entitled to a fair use defense. According to an article in TechDirt, this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part, and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey's painting was admiration, and a desire for an autographed litho. Maybe Mr. Fairey should have given him that autographed litho."
Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog'.
...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl's ass?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Photog? Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?
So, lets say that this isn't Obama, since the personality and timeliness of the subject appear to be clouding the issue. I'm presuming that the timliness of an image, since the copyright lasts for over a century, isn't salient (someone will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong).
Let's say this is the picture of the Hellers Bakery. Let's say it's a photo of a street flower vendor, and someone takes an anonymous photo off the net and decides to base a work of art on it. It might look like this http://www.josephcraigenglish.com/SidewalkFlowers.jpg and the artist would be required to create the hundred-plus silk screens and choose the colors to create a particular mood. How about if it were more generic? Say, a photo of the Capitol, posterized down to 8 colors with a red-white-and-blue sky?
Having seen the photo and the print for the first time today (but having hear about it previously), I'm calling bullshit on the AP and Garcia. Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.
I fear that the court will rule in favor or either the AP or Garcia. If they do, it will be just one more proof that the system is broken, and is stifling rather than promoting and enabling.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sorry 'bout the Heller's Bakery line...I forgot to delete it when I chose another JCE print. FWIW, he does very nice work, and they're a bit of fun when you want to add color to a room. It's a bonus if you're from the DC area and know the spots he likes to take as subjects.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
,,, it would look like this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/09/article-0-0237E35600000578-961_468x541.jpg
If his initial attitude changed it must have done so a while ago. I heard the artist and the photographer interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR some months ago, and the latter was quite clear that he considered his photograph to have been stolen, and also made the claim then that he thought he owned the copyright, not the AP. He was a bit peeved, and frustrated by the general attitude that people thought they could do whatever they wanted with images that they happened to find on the internet (which was where this artist found the photograph). He described the difficult, creative work and considerable preparation that went in to making the photograph, and, naturally, did not agree with the artists' view that his transformation of it was creatively significant enough to support his claim of fair use. Originally, I was sympathetic with the artist, but after hearing the photographer's point of view, I'm torn.
Anyone notice the name of Garcia's law firm? It's familiar to most slashdoters, Boies Shiller & Lexner.
In the discussions I'm seeing pros and cons on Garcia versus the artist, but I'm not seeing anything supporting AP. IANAL and need some insight. Does the AP have any legitimate claim to copyright ownership?
...This is good publicity for that nice looking ass. Nerds are like "What ass?" You men you!
I'd mod this response UP!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Obligatory Evan Roth Intellectual Property Asshole Competition Link
Although it seems both assholes are refusing the bait.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
No one seems to have noticed the real "transformative" or impressionist addition made by the "painter", huh? He altered the background and shading in the photo to reflect a gradient from red to white to blue.
I'd say that's plenty transformative enough. Regardless, I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate in even pointing this out, given that I disagree with most of the justifications for the existence of copyright in the first place.
This "photog" Garcia is apparently a prick who isn't happy with just his 15 minutes of fame... he wants money and "justice", too.
as it is up to a court and judge to decide if the "fair use" clause can be used for the artwork.
In many cases artwork is based on pictures, but it is different enough from the picture that it does not violate copyrights. If it was a bit by bit copy you can claim copyright violation, but it is not a 100% match and may be different enough through effects and colors that it may fall under "Fair Use" for parody or works of art, or anything.
It should be noted that the "stupid" DMCA law tries to do away with "Fair Use", and that our founding fathers of the USA would be upset if they read the DMCA to see that "Fair Use" clauses are being removed or limited in ways that others cannot use copyrighted works for parodies, works of art, education, etc under a "Fair Use" clause.
All that was done was figure out which photograph the artwork may have been based on, and that consent was not given by the AP or the photographer; however, "Fair Use" might still apply, and it is up for a judge and court to decide it.
What horrors to learn that even "Fair Use" does not apply anymore, which means our freedom and rights are trumped by Intellectual Property and Copyright laws. Which means we have been cheated out of rights and freedoms promised to us by the US Constitution by those who seek to profit at the expense of others losing their rights and freedoms.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."
Actually, posting it on the internet does make it free for the taking, Garcia. It's just not free to sell or distribute as ones own.
Personally, I think this is a bunch of crap. At the very most, the poster only looks like a drawing of Obama's head from the picture. Maybe it was stylized in Photoshop or maybe he very carefully sketched out a drawing of the photo, but there was also some additional details added by the poster author that are not in the picture, just as there are some details in the photo not in the poster.
Yes, someone made a sketch of a picture that you took of someone and posted on the internet. Deal with it.
...you could find a frame in the thousands of hours of TV coverage of Obama that has his face in this approximate pose and orientation - enough from which to base the stylization of the bust, and crop out the background to the multi-colored sky and banner bottom? Would the existence of such a frame nullify this lawsuit, or create a second one allowing one of the TV networks to sue the artist as well?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Taking a a photograph of something is not an original work, for the most part. Painting a picture of it might be.
But to be honest (while leaving out entirely my position on Obama's politics themselves) I would think that Obama himself should have copyright on any images of himself, to hell with who made them.
I think this should apply in general, although photo studios certainly believe otherwise and go out of their way to tell you so. If the subject of a photo is a person, then that person should have an overriding right to use that photograph in any way they see fit, at the very least, in addition to, any rights that the photographer might have. If the photograph is of a privately owned object, then ditto for the owner of said object. If of a publicly owned object, then the photo, once released, should be public domain.
... Obama became President elect on the first Tuesday in Nov. 2008, when he was elected president. The photo was from the previous April.
Eh?
Obama wasn't a president at the time that photo was taken. Official [*] has nothing to do with anything...whomever WAS the OWHP then wouldn't have been photographing the President if he had been taking shots of Obama.
Bill Clinton is going to be all over me like I was a Christmas ham! (or a chubby intern)
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
This might be interesting if it were the first time I'd read it here.
But posting it in every Obama-related article is just obnoxious, and perhaps racist itself.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Nice of him to let AP do all the leg work on the case and THEN intervene.
Regarding this: "There's no way to square this with his original comments"
I do not believe Garcia is being inconsistent; I would probably have a similar reaction. I put almost all my photographs under the creative commons license, and I am very flattered when anyone considers my photographs good enough to use for anything. Still, I consider this part of the license absolutely essential: "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I took the energy to take and share my photograph with others, so I think the license I put it under should be respected.
Although I use a different license than Garcia, we both agree that putting something online should not be the equivalent of completely losing ownership/control of our art. Still, we are both flattered when people do want to use our art. These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
Al Gore received 90% of the black vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 88% of the black vote in 2004. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/21/black-support-for-obama-at-near-record-levels/)
So your 65% number is bullshit.
Since this is off-topic I'll say no more.
the real issue is that copyright law protects the entity with the largest legal budget
It's crap like this that makes me favor a corporate death penalty--if a corporation is found to be guilty of not acting in the public good, they shouldn't be eligible for fines (just the cost of doing business in most places, don't you know,) instead they should be hit with various degrees of temporary unincorporation for various lengths of time, with a total dismemberment and set period of ineligibility for its CEOs and corporate officers to work in any leadership positions for a set period of years. If they're legal people, then they can be subject to real sanctions. Crap like this should apply.
--bornagainpenguin
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
...to point out that he is actually the one with ownership over his own head and all 3 of these people are wrong?
baby got barack
http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What was the contract that Garcia signed with AP? If he didn't sign anything, then AP wouldn't have any rights to use his work at all. If he signed over all his rights, AP owns the work. If he signed over certain rights to use them in newspapers and magazines, but kept all other rights for himself, then he owns the rights. Depending on the contract he used, he might have kept the right to make derivative merchandise.
Garcia's legal papers don't mention anything about the contract he signed with AP.
Are there any photographers out there? What are the provisions in the usual contract you sign with an agency like AP? Do you sell all rights? What rights do you keep?
"...it has something to do with getting stoned..."
seems like you're somewhat correct, but it's more like getting unstoned... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotomy
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
I think the photographer is due something. But by the time the courts have figured out exactly what that is, the lawyers will have used up all the money.
Arbitration seems like a worthy alternative to the courts.
Since it's a famous picture of him, maybe the President could spend a few hours looking over those law books and sorting out some of this Intellectual Property mess we find ourselves in. Look at it another way, if Barack Obama can somehow be personally dragged into this vortex the way John Q. Downloader has been, maybe there finally will finally be some... Change. :)
I bet it's impossible that you interpret the statistics totally wrong mr Troll? Have a look at "Vote by Ideology" and go figure
Also, what was the percentage Al Gore received from African-Americans?
I love it when conservatives talk about race. It's so ... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.
Keep on going.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
We really did ourselves in with this election I'm afraid.
With this election!? You americans are some severely diluted people. For the past 8 years your ex president helped your nation gain one of the worst reputations in the world, and you honestly think that now you've fucked up? The next time a european (or a piece of "eurotrash" as you so elaborately call us) flips you the finger for just being american, please don't be surprised. It only makes you look even more embarassing since it merely proves your cluelessness of just what the fuck the world thinks.
And of course when a piece of Eurotrash like you flips your finger at an Amercican, you once again demonstrate your superior intelligence.
You're all a bad cartoon.
Whose ass was it? i want to know who is the owner of that shiny magenta badonkadonk? That chick looked pretty hot.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
It was an ass-check. 'Course Mayara was worth a backward glance...
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I went back to AP's answer and counterclaim to see what they had to say about why they felt they had the copyright to Garcia's photo. They said he was a "staff photographer".
If I were a judge reading that, I would assume they meant that he was an employee of AP. Garcia says he is not an employee, but an independent contractor. Since his allegations are specific while theirs is vague, I would assume he is telling the truth.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I know what you meant, but diluted != deluded
He may be a "eurotrash cartoon" but you're the compotence of Homer Simpson with the vanilla cultural vomitocracy of Ned Flanders with a healthy dose of Andy Kapp and King of the Hill (without the charm.)
In your point of view South African blacks were racist for fighting their white oppressors ('they were all white! You're just a bunch of anti-white racists'). There's a description for your point of view: it's called 'blaming the victim'.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
When a European says you are diluted, there is a good chance he intends to put you in a concentration camp.
I voted for Obama because he's black and I'm white.
It's easy to assume this makes me racist or narrow minded, but consider I didn't vote for him because he was black -for him-, I did it -for everyone else-.
Anyways, racism in America is pretty watered down compared to racism in the rest of the world. Here we have a history of slavery and the occasional racially motivated murder, theft, arson, whatever. Other parts of the world have mass genocide, constant war, competent adults mutually hating each other even when they have the same-colored skin but different bloodlines, refusal of medical care, food and water... slavery appears relatively benevolent contrasted to modern racism.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I think they both work, I feel pretty diluted.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I love it when conservatives talk about race. It's so ... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.
Keep on going.
I always love it when Democrats talk about Republican racists. There are so many to talk about, like the Klu Klux Klan member in the Senate...Oops, my bad, he's a Democrat (Robert Byrd).
You might want to check the history of the two parties. If it wasn't for a Democrat (Woodrow Wilson), the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's (and the Civil Rights Act) would probably have not been necessary.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
the Klu Klux Klan member in the Senate...Oops, my bad, he's a Democrat (Robert Byrd).
Yes, he was a Klan member early in his life. No, he is not a member any longer. Everyone deserves a second chance; an opportunity to prove rehabilitation.
So what has Byrd actually said or done that indicate that he's a racist? And how does that compare to people like you and the freepers unapologetically calling Obama's daughter "street trash" and so forth.
Byrd has demonstrated his rehabilitation over many years. Conservatives seem to prove they are racists every day.
You might want to check the history of the two parties.
Funny you bring up LBJ, because he's the one who ejected the racists from the party. Their home is now with the conservatives.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Funny you bring up LBJ, because he's the one who ejected the racists from the party. Their home is now with the conservatives.
You mean people like Al Gore's father? Or Bill Clinton's mentor (J. William Fulbright)? So LBJ kicked these guys out of the Democratic Party? And LBJ kicked Ernest "Confederate Flag" Hollings out of the party? Really? You might want to check your history a little closer.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"" - does that mean he wins his own contest? :P
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
LOL - Angry much? Not everybody loves you either you self-righteous prick.
Hey! Enough with the gross generalizations, OK?
The US is a huge place, and far from homogeneous.
It's roughly the same distance from London to Moscow as from Kansas City (in the middle of the US) to Los Angeles. The cultural differences between Kansas and LA are just as big.
And have the balls to post with a proper ID or just shut up.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
It's true, Democrats used to be the racist party. Lincoln was a Republican.
What you're overlooking, however, is the fact that that all changed in the mid-20th century. Look up the "Southern Strategy". Racist Democrats migrated en masse to the GOP.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
When did Robert Byrd change parties? How about Bill clinton's mentor (William J Fulbright)? Compare the racial make up of George W. Bush's Cabinet to that of Bill Clinton.
Democrats assert that Republicans are racist, but it was Senate Democrats who wrote memos saying that Miguel Estrada must at all costs be kept off of the DC Circuit Court because he was Hispanic. It is Democrats who believe that minorities can only succeed if the government favors them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
When did Robert Byrd change parties? How about Bill clinton's mentor (William J Fulbright)?
Please, keep on ignoring the vast sea of racist Republicans, and more importantly, the Republican attitudes and policies that have all but destroyed minority support for the GOP.
And keep on equating Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK over half a century ago with the racism that exists in the Republican Party today.
Democrats assert that Republicans are racist, but it was Senate Democrats who wrote memos saying that Miguel Estrada must at all costs be kept off of the DC Circuit Court because he was Hispanic. It is Democrats who believe that minorities can only succeed if the government favors them.
Gosh, you're right, it's the Democrats who really hate minorities. That must be why the Democratic Party has been reduced to a tiny regional party, reliant on the votes of evangelical whites whipped up by bigoted talk show hosts, and the Republican Party has been carried into the House, Senate, and the White House by a base that crosses racial and religious lines.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Nothing you say can change the fact that it's CONSERVATIVES calling Obama's daughter "street trash" and regularly calling black people monkeys.
Everyone can see that the conservatives are racists, and when you try to deflect that, it just shows how blind you are to the problem in your own party.
It matters not if you understand. The thing that matters is that everyone ELSE can see it, and by simply denying it, you're outing yourself as someone who does not have the first clue about racism.
Thanks for outing yourself. The Internet never forgets, and this record of your ignorance will last until the end of time.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And it was liberals who created racist cartoons of Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas. Nothing you can say can change the fact that liberals have always been racists and always will be. If a minority stops drinking the kool-aid and starts thinking for themselves, they will be belittled by liberals at every turn.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just said that she always thought that Roe v Wade was about not having growth in "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What racist cartoons? Let's see them. Put up or SHUT UP.
Are you looking for a Democrat's "Macaca Moment?" Sorry, but that's reserved for Republicans. Conservatives just seem to use the racist words like "darkie" and "jigaboo" out of habit. And everyone here knows it and sees it, but you.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just said that she always thought that Roe v Wade was about not having growth in "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Really? How much would you bet that if I used the Google, Ginsburg said NOTHING OF THE SORT and your statement is just because you and other conservatives can't read and/or love to quote out of context.
In other words, I'm calling you a liar. You liar.
Now let's check.
That's from a conservative site: http://www.drudge.com/news/122942/ginsburg-abortion-reduced-undesired
And yes, it proves you're a liar.
Ginsburg was saying quite plainly that she was opposed to the idea of abortion being used to as a tool to limit minority populations, and she was relieved when the McRae decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=448&invol=297) found that Medicaid did NOT have to pay for all types or situations for abortions. At that point she understood that abortion would not be used as a tool of eugenics, which she was relieved about.
This has been a valuable entry in the permanent Internet record of your stupidity.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!