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."
Photog? Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?
Dude, have you seen the photo? It's actually out of context (if you see the actual video), but hilarious. If it was Bush, everyone would be hamming it up. Obama's the president, and with that comes our right as Americans to poke fun at him on a regular basis. There's nothing unique about him that exempts him from that. Also, your comment indicates presumptuousness - how to you know syousef is conservative? Also, what's up with being Anonymous Coward? Are you that ashamed of your political ideals?
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
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.
ABC posted a video of the whole event, he is not checking her out. Or at least, his head does not track her. He's turning around to offer an arm to the woman behind him to help her down the stairs.
Sarkoszy, on the other hand, stares at her ass for a good 10 seconds.
Yeah, the girl in question asked for a swat on the butt, but Bush decided one in the small of the back was more appropriate.
Clearly Bush (who got to play some volleyball) had the better of it, if you read the whole article.
You can't be serious about that? Clearly it does apply.
Fair use serves a crucial role in limiting the reach of what would otherwise be an intolerably expansive grant of rights to copyright owners. Were it not for the fair use doctrine, each of the following activities would be infringing:
* whistling a tune while walking down the street (public performance)
* cutting out a New Yorker cartoon and posting it on your office door (public display)
* photocopying a newspaper article for your files (reproduction)
* quoting a line from The Simpsons in an email to a coworker (reproduction)
* reverse engineering of computer code (reproduction)
* "time-shifting" a radio or television program (reproduction)
* playing an excerpt of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" in a copyright law course (public performance)
* quoting from a novel in a review (reproduction)
If you ever took an art class, you know that they use such things as pictures and then ask you to create your own art from it. If this case is found guilty of copyright impingement, then art classes will be outlawed or drastically changed so that one cannot create art from a photograph.
It is not a photocopy, it is art, it is not an exact copy, it is different in a certain way as an art form goes.
If this case is valid, then artists everywhere will lose their rights and freedoms to create art just like it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbifTbJtgJA
thegodmovie.com - watch it