Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images

[hero]

www.papermag.com/blogs/2009/10/shepard_fairey_admits_to_submi.php#more


Shepard fairey admits to lying and "submitting false images" in his court case over the Obama Hope image

[Deleted]

blimey.

[Coach]

Article here as well

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_en_mu/us_ap_poster_artist

[sashaz]

so how much is he being sued for?

[spenie1975]

what happened to the red star hero?

[bobbymeachamjr]

What a disgrace. A bit of vindication for all the artists/photographers/writers etc etc who were labeled as "Jealous" of his creative genius...

[cadeallaw]

Legally, I think he has a strong case regardless of where he got the image. He took a picture and made it his own due to the color scheme that he created. When you see mock images of the Progress or Hope prints, it isn't about the angle of the head, it is all about the blue and red color scheme.

The fact that he submitted false images and deleted others just makes him look like a dummy and a liar.

[packet]

Misleading the court with false images certainly damages his case. He'll be lucky to get away unscathed by this one. The AP's lawyers are going to jump all over it and seeing as his own lawyers seem to be withdrawing from the case, it's not looking good for Fairey.

[bobbymeachamjr]

Legalities aside, Fairey himself reaffirms the validity (or lack thereof) of his creative process that he thought he needed to lie to his lawyers, the courts, his fans and the general public. And then to destroy the original files and recreate some fake process with the bs photo? WOW

[Happy Shopper]

Pretty bizarre situation.
The way I read it though was that he didn't lie on purpose about which image he'd used, but once he realised he was wrong he tried to cover it up.
I'm not sure why he did that though because it actually makes no difference to the case... just makes him look like an arse!

[packet]

Whether or not he realized it or not, the problem is the cover up:

"Instead of acknowledging that mistake, Mr. Fairey attempted to delete the electronic files he had used in creating the illustration at issue. He also created, and delivered to his counsel for production, new documents to make it appear as though he had used the Clooney photograph as his reference.""

[kjzimm]

I'm a photographer and wannabe artist. Truth is, he has no rights to that image. He needs to settle with the photographer or AP--whomever owns the image.

[leumasdarnley]

abcnews.go.com/Business/WireStory?id=8852933&page=1

[origo]

He would have been better of offering a settlement from the beginning (unless he did try), he could have gotten away with paying AP a maybe rather large sum.

This is definetely shooting yourself in the foot, no way out of this one.

Not only have he broken the copryrightlaw, he also lied to the court. Definetely not looking good, exciting to see what the court will decide for him.

[bullet]

even if he does 'do time' im sure the signed prints and designs will keep magically being released every other day

[notworthit]

Oct 18, 2009 12:05:37 GMT 1 bullet said:

even if he does 'do time' im sure the signed prints and designs will keep magically being released every other day

Well after your barnstorming effort recreating 'jaws' perhaps you'll be able to take over!

[bullet]

my team let me down...

[snausages]

Oct 17, 2009 21:39:33 GMT 1 cadeallaw said:

Legally, I think he has a strong case regardless of where he got the image. He took a picture and made it his own due to the color scheme that he created. When you see mock images of the Progress or Hope prints, it isn't about the angle of the head, it is all about the blue and red color scheme.

The fact that he submitted false images and deleted others just makes him look like a dummy and a liar.

I'm not so sure about that, if I want to use a stock photo in a design, I have to do a lot more than colorize and posterize the image to get away with using it, putting a caption underneath is not effectively changing the design either. If I did that I'd get my arse sued off by Getty et al.

Not sure if this is funny or sad.

[bigtlt]

Has Fairey not made a career and many thousands of dollars out of rehashing/ripping off other peoples images???

[notworthit]

Oct 18, 2009 13:51:10 GMT 1 bullet said:

my team let me down...

Team - Gob

[geoffw]

So the issue isn't the image useage but him deleting files as part of the legal case? If so that could lead to big trouble.

[Happy Shopper]

Did Richard Hamilton get permission to use this press photo?

[Happy Shopper]

Or Warhol get permission?

[bobbymeachamjr]

Read up on Warhol, theres a thing called concept. Gotta agree with legendary designer Milton Glaser, "I find the relationship between Fairey’s work and his sources discomforting. Nothing substantial has been added. In my own case, when I did the Dylan poster, I acknowledged using Duchamp’s profile as an influence. I think unless you’re modifying it and making it your own, you’re on very tenuous ground. It’s a dangerous example for students, if they see that appropriating people’s work is the path to success. Simply reproducing the work of others robs you of your imagination and form-making abilities. You’re not developing the muscularity you need to invent your own ideas."

oh and btw, Warhol nevertheless was sued many times over (and settled with $$$)...

[lee3]

Oct 19, 2009 14:02:17 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

Or Warhol get permission?

The laws were different in the 60s with this stuff but the answer to your question is yes in many cases and no in many others. One of the more significant lawsuits against Warhol involved the original phtographer of the Flower image that he debuted at Castelli in '64 and painted until his death. Warhol did not deny it and the woman who took the photo was offered some prints which she declined and eventually a cash settlement was reached if memory serves. It was this lawsuit which led Warhol to temporarily abandon (for the most part) looking through newspapers (or having friends in the press get him photos that were too gruesome to print for many of the death and disaster paintings) for images and inspiration to his work and focus instead on taking his own photos.

He did not take the photo of the Marilyn image that you copied above which was from an early publicity shot from one of her films in the 50s. For my eyes, that is the defining composition of the Pop movement.

[jimbob68]

i always thought that an artist could use another artist or photographers work as an idea to start from but thay had to make the finished work something like 'significnatly there own' or similar words and this is where the point of argument comes up. how different does something have to be so that it is sufficiently different!!! confusing !!

a good day for the lawyers i think!!!

[snausages]

So the issue isn't the image useage but him deleting files as part of the legal case? If so that could lead to big trouble.

The image useage is still in question, plus now Fairey is open for further action for filing false documents and filing a countersuit under false pretenses.

Oct 19, 2009 20:15:44 GMT 1 jimbob68 said:

i always thought that an artist could use another artist or photographers work as an idea to start from but thay had to make the finished work something like 'significnatly there own' or similar words and this is where the point of argument comes up. how different does something have to be so that it is sufficiently different!!! confusing !!

a good day for the lawyers i think!!!

Here's an easy read that highlights some of the issues:
www.grammar-quizzes.com/writing_fair_use.html
So did Fairey change 5 major elements in Obama?
Compared to the example I think he only makes a list of three major changes.
1 Airbrushing - possibly equivalent to tracing / posterization?
2 Major color changes
3 New items added
(cropping, logo, Letters added/deleted (Hope), border, etc.)

No angle changes and no texture change (at least in the poster)

[Happy Shopper]

As much as I respect Milton Glaser's opinion, just like Peter Saville, he's a graphic designer and not an artist.
They both look at art like it's design, and don't seem to think about why a thing has been done the way it is. Neither seem to "get it", not IMO anyway!

Laws change, but it'll be a sad day when an artist has to think about whether they can use a "pop" image because it might be under a photographers copyright.

Is Hirst right to sue Cartrain for using his skull? (Whatever level Cartrain may be in the art world, the same rule should apply, no?)

Found this lovely piece of Milton Glaser "art" on Google. What a genius! (sarcasm):

[Happy Shopper]

Just to counter my own argument.
Fairey used the Obama image for a commercial poster, rather than art... and so deserves what he gets really!

[otomi]

if ap wins no artist can use any old artwork anymore that would be horrible - art lives from fair use, sampling and remixing

www.hulu.com/watch/88782/rip-a-remix-manifesto