Free Worldwide Shipping on Orders Over $150.00 USD or more - Use Code: HBSHIP150
February 4, 2009 @ 07:11 PM
February 4, 2009 @ 07:12 PM
gamesnacks

Post: 383

Join Date: Jan 2008

That's lame because there is no way they can prove 100% that he got inspired by the AP photo. They mean to tell us that Obama has only been in that position during that photo? If I am Shepard's attorneys, I will argue that the stance, position and posture of Barack Obama is a creative expression of an artist's view of human behavior and that that had nothing to do with any AP photo.
February 4, 2009 @ 07:15 PM
owensA

Post: 2346

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Live from 215

^^lol, it's a bit hard to argue that, look at the AP photo!

February 4, 2009 @ 08:37 PM
gamesnacks

Post: 383

Join Date: Jan 2008

LOL Yea, but that AP photo isn't the only situation were Barack Obama has struck that pose; Shepard's attorneys could just say that.

Thanks for posting that image because that's a good size.

With that said though, you'd have to ask, "What was Shepard thinking as an artist by using the likeness?" Did he not know the risks?

It is a good example of how WE should be a little smarter about any choices we may make. He has made tons of cheese off of that Obama campaign that he has created with the "HOPE" phrase.
February 5, 2009 @ 01:52 AM
dinoXSKETCHPAD

Post: 181

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: Bellflower, CA

The lawsuit would only be effective if there weren't any strong alterations done to the image enough from the original though. Also, I think AP is only fighting this due to its successes because if McCain would've won the presidency, and Barack disappears to oblivion, this wouldn't even be a case. It's just a showing of a 'dog-eat-dog' world we live in.

And remember where Shepard Fairey came from -- the street-art world -- so it was a classic case of graffiti artist intent of manipulating whatever mainstream media produces.

I hope AP loses this case for being a bunch of greedy corpses. If all else fails, the Obama campaign should do well to support Shepard's case because he did play a huge role in Obama's presidency. Even Obama himself gave a nod of appreciation towards it. Also, like Shepard's stated many times, he didn't make money off of all the reproductions of his poster. I'm sure he made some money off of the original work, but if they're asking for royalties of any sorts, they should be hitting up all the swap-meets in the hoods selling the image for profits also. Correct?
February 5, 2009 @ 11:21 AM
owensA

Post: 2346

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Live from 215

LOL Yea, but that AP photo isn't the only situation were Barack Obama has struck that pose; Shepard's attorneys could just say that.


Ya but same facial expression, etc., sorry but no judge is gonna believe that it was just a massive coincidence. Apparently Shephard fairey has pretty much just given that Obama art out for free and he hasn't really made any money from it so I don't know if it would be worth the legal fees for the AP to pursue the lawsuit anyway.
February 6, 2009 @ 11:04 AM
SK1

Post: 1139

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: mA$$

Hahaha the argument is not whether or not he used the photo, he admits that that is indeed the photo he used. Trying to dispute that would just stupid legally. What he is saying is that under fair use, artists are allowed to use photos for inspiration, even if they are copyrighted.
February 6, 2009 @ 03:40 PM
sev24sev

Post: 199

Join Date: Dec 2008

I haven't kept up with them since they were a small skate company and maybe I'm old school but isn't the Obey (Giant) brand pretty much based on spotting a trend and copying it? I think a lot of his stuff is manipulated from other things. They even edit or return to their own designs for new releases. I remember when the FUCT vs Obey thing was going on. Erik Brunetti was pissed about it at the time and called Shepard Fairey out in public to no reply. They asked him about it again in the addicteed interview. I realize there's a difference between having an idea and being able to create a demand for it (look at McDonalds vs Ray Croc) but how original are Shepards ideas?

When I saw the Obama image for the first time, I knew exactly what is was because it resembled the Obey Commanda Tee.



After reading interviews with Shepard and hearing his reasons for doing it, that even the Obama camp got on board and that the poster is on display in the Smithsonian, I was really impressed with how far he'd gotten. When I saw the story about AP going after him on the news last night I found it really amusing that he's still defending himself years later on the same topic (and is apparently still up to the same stuff). Props to him for creating such a following and a brand but it's still amusing. AP is a little larger than FUCT so I guess he'll have to reply now. Good thing he's already made enough off of doing it to cover his legal fees.

cool
February 6, 2009 @ 05:52 PM
owensA

Post: 2346

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Live from 215

Hahaha the argument is not whether or not he used the photo, he admits that that is indeed the photo he used. Trying to dispute that would just stupid legally. What he is saying is that under fair use, artists are allowed to use photos for inspiration, even if they are copyrighted.


ahh I see, ppl were saying that the Fairey should use the argument of "oh well he's made that expression/pose a million times" before so I was pointing out that that would not hold up in court.

Still I really don't know, it looks like he just took the photo and "obeyized" it via photoshop or however he does it (perhaps by hand), either way it's artistic method, so I guess what is at issue is the definition of inspiration and where the line lies b/w inspiration and copyright. And I mean there are artists whose entire works are collages or edits of other ppls work (like ppl that take photographs and turn them into paintings, drawings, etc) so I'm curious as to how the law perceives copywright affecting art.
February 6, 2009 @ 11:47 PM
sev24sev

Post: 199

Join Date: Dec 2008

I asked Bobby Hundreds about it. In case you missed it...

Well, I actually have some sort of opinion.. I actually spent about a half-year studying this type of thing.. not only within intellectual property (copyright law, trademark law), but also fair use of parodied imagery, or inspired graphics like Shepard does.. and while I do think the AP does have rights to enforce against someone using their work without permission, the law does incorporate a fair use principle which encourages Shep to do what he does for the sake of ART. And really, while Shep got a big boost out of it for his name/brand/career, it was really for art's sake, to help us usher in a new administration... it wasn't for anything greedy. And that being said, I do think Shepard was justified in using this photograph as the basis for his work. Whether or not he paid for the license.

AP isn't necessary the evil here though.. they are just trying to protect themselves. It sets up a precedent, where if they let Shep slide with that one, then a whole mess of other artists can come in, rip their photos, and claim they were using it for the same intents and purposes also. And at the end of the day, AP makes a living off of securing rights to those photographs.


I agree with most except I'm unsure about the profit part. Selling posters for $500 seems like a little bit of a profit margin. I don't blame him, just think that it wasn't all for art.
February 9, 2009 @ 08:41 PM
r31j23

Post: 41

Join Date: May 2008

dude is doing big things
February 15, 2009 @ 08:40 AM
UNSEENARTIST

Post: 1

Join Date: Feb 2009

How about this? Would this get into trouble?
February 16, 2009 @ 09:54 PM
`send help

Post: 20

Join Date: Feb 2009

people love money.
February 23, 2009 @ 03:58 PM
WGMeets

Post: 720

Join Date: Sep 2008

Location: Clifton, NJ

Fairey should get charged for the other stuff he's stolen :p
February 28, 2009 @ 07:24 PM
Noah

Post: 623

Join Date: Jul 2008

Fairey should get charged for the other stuff he's stolen


yes please

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top