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.
free to all wihtout copyright , this is how stupid US copyright is and look how much money gets wasted while people starve and oil and power get used up over something so retarded it make sme want to look at the exorcist head spin , over and over again
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.
Despite the major news-papers' best efforts, the bottom has fallen off of whatever container was holding support for Obama. Perhaps, Mr. Garcia is one of the remorseful buyers of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" snake oil, and, somewhat literally, wants his money back?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...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?
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
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.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
... 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!!!
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.
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. :)
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
"" - 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.