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."
say what you want, regarding his taste, full ack. bruni is hot.
I've seen the video, and while there's the possibility that he could have been looking at something else, why should he? Seriously, any sane man would definitely be checking that out. I don't care if I were the king of the universe, I would still be giving that at least a twice over. I don't care if you think it's immoral, inappropriate, or just plain wrong, it's normal male behavior. I don't care if that makes us pigs or not, the only way you couldn't at least toss a casual glance at that either means you're inhuman or not interested. If you watch the video you can tell that Sarkozy is definitely checking that out and for the most part his country could probably give two shits less. If nothing else, that picture tells me that Obama is an average Joe, at least on some level. He may not by the president people want to have a beer with, but I'd stare at some hot ass with him. If anyone thinks this is immoral or inappropriate, go fuck yourself. Seriously, go fuck yourself. You're the same dipshit who wasted time debating whether or not Clinton was getting some side action. You're worrying about the wrong things.
Also... It looks like something a mildly talented person could do in under an hour in Photoshop.
Which is all Shepard Fairey really has to offer the world. All of his best "work" is borrowed more or less directly from another artist's source materials with little to no modification aside from his brand name.
It may be that Duchamp and Warhol paved the way towards the act of selection being defined as a creative act, but I find it difficult to think of Fairey in the same light. His work isn't breaking barriers, presenting irony, or forcing us to rethink our interpretation of the source material he chooses to use. It is blatantly commercial and self-serving, calling attention to the Fairey brand without adding any value or doing any creative work as part of the process.
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.