otomi
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,805
๐๐ป 169
July 2007
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by otomi on Oct 20, 2009 0:58:15 GMT 1, 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! 
it was not commercial it was a benefit and maybe propaganda but he never denied making that 
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! it was not commercial it was a benefit and maybe propaganda but he never denied making that |
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by snausages on Oct 20, 2009 1:00:48 GMT 1, 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): 
Sorry, are you referring to Fairey when you say he's a graphic designer, not an artist?
No disrespect Happy Shopper, but to claim that Glaser "doesn't get it" because he's a designer shows a lack of understanding. The insight and creativity necessary for the two disciplines is the same. From printmag.com, "observations that the artist made." This shows Glaser is very much thinking of it in "artistic terms." I'd put Glaser and Fairey in the same category and Glaser himself refers to Fairey as a colleague.
Yes Glaser has referenced elements many times, not the issue. Your example, obviously referencing Apple, ...not the same as downloading an image, posterizing it and pretending it's your own creation. The meaning of that poster ^ is significantly different and far from a posterization of a downloaded image with new colors and text. ...or take Glaser's Dylan poster, he referenced Duchamp's silhouette and redrew Dylan's portrait in that style ...he didn't simply take a picture and posterize itโhe took a picture and redrew it with a concept in mind. He went even further and drew the psychedelic hair by hand.
www.101bananas.com/art/dylan.html
If fairey was a great artist, he could have done a better job recreating the Brockman image for the poster that Glaser talks about in detail:
www.printmag.com/design_articles/MiltonGlaseronShepardFairey/tabid/492/Default.aspx
Look how weird the cheeks and chin look. What are those lumps on her hand? Fairey doesn't know how to draw. To contrast look at work by Glaser, the guy actually painted and drew his work by hand. So is Fairey an artist and Glaser not? I don't think so.
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): Sorry, are you referring to Fairey when you say he's a graphic designer, not an artist? No disrespect Happy Shopper, but to claim that Glaser "doesn't get it" because he's a designer shows a lack of understanding. The insight and creativity necessary for the two disciplines is the same. From printmag.com, "observations that the artist made." This shows Glaser is very much thinking of it in "artistic terms." I'd put Glaser and Fairey in the same category and Glaser himself refers to Fairey as a colleague. Yes Glaser has referenced elements many times, not the issue. Your example, obviously referencing Apple, ...not the same as downloading an image, posterizing it and pretending it's your own creation. The meaning of that poster ^ is significantly different and far from a posterization of a downloaded image with new colors and text. ...or take Glaser's Dylan poster, he referenced Duchamp's silhouette and redrew Dylan's portrait in that style ...he didn't simply take a picture and posterize itโhe took a picture and redrew it with a concept in mind. He went even further and drew the psychedelic hair by hand.www.101bananas.com/art/dylan.htmlIf fairey was a great artist, he could have done a better job recreating the Brockman image for the poster that Glaser talks about in detail: www.printmag.com/design_articles/MiltonGlaseronShepardFairey/tabid/492/Default.aspxLook how weird the cheeks and chin look. What are those lumps on her hand? Fairey doesn't know how to draw. To contrast look at work by Glaser, the guy actually painted and drew his work by hand. So is Fairey an artist and Glaser not? I don't think so. |
|
findtom
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 109
๐๐ป 0
April 2007
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by findtom on Oct 20, 2009 9:24:58 GMT 1, 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!
The image he was trying to claim he used apparently had a slightly stronger case for fair use, even though both of the images in question are owned by AP.
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! The image he was trying to claim he used apparently had a slightly stronger case for fair use, even though both of the images in question are owned by AP. |
|
findtom
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 109
๐๐ป 0
April 2007
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by findtom on Oct 20, 2009 9:41:07 GMT 1, 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.
I had the whole thing explained to me by a pretty top tier copyright lawyer today. He said that even if he owned up to sourcing the image that the AP claimed he used in the first place, he would have still likely won the fair use case.
The finished work is his own concept, he merely used the photo as a reference. The HOPE, the colors, the distinctly Shepard Fairey style applied to the image, even a slightly different pose, none of these things can be legitimately claimed by the owner of the photograph. It's the president's face. The only sticky part is that Shepard has it framed the same way as the photographer, which is why he tried to claim he used the Clooney photo instead.
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. I had the whole thing explained to me by a pretty top tier copyright lawyer today. He said that even if he owned up to sourcing the image that the AP claimed he used in the first place, he would have still likely won the fair use case. The finished work is his own concept, he merely used the photo as a reference. The HOPE, the colors, the distinctly Shepard Fairey style applied to the image, even a slightly different pose, none of these things can be legitimately claimed by the owner of the photograph. It's the president's face. The only sticky part is that Shepard has it framed the same way as the photographer, which is why he tried to claim he used the Clooney photo instead. |
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by snausages on Oct 20, 2009 16:52:12 GMT 1, 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. I had the whole thing explained to me by a pretty top tier copyright lawyer today. He said that even if he owned up to sourcing the image that the AP claimed he used in the first place, he would have still likely won the fair use case. The finished work is his own concept, he merely used the photo as a reference. The HOPE, the colors, the distinctly Shepard Fairey style applied to the image, even a slightly different pose, none of these things can be legitimately claimed by the owner of the photograph. It's the president's face. The only sticky part is that Shepard has it framed the same way as the photographer, which is why he tried to claim he used the Clooney photo instead.
But the only thing different is the color as you mentioned and the "Fairey style" (tracing and posterization) - other than that he added some elements which would all group as 1 change. It's definitely not a different pose or angle. So as I mentioned already he really only has made 3 fundamental changes when the precedent puts it at at least 5 to get away with it.
If it was that cut and dry of a win for Fairey like your friend says this thing should have been over already.
And the fact that it was a benefit print doesn't matter as far as copyright law is concerned.
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. I had the whole thing explained to me by a pretty top tier copyright lawyer today. He said that even if he owned up to sourcing the image that the AP claimed he used in the first place, he would have still likely won the fair use case. The finished work is his own concept, he merely used the photo as a reference. The HOPE, the colors, the distinctly Shepard Fairey style applied to the image, even a slightly different pose, none of these things can be legitimately claimed by the owner of the photograph. It's the president's face. The only sticky part is that Shepard has it framed the same way as the photographer, which is why he tried to claim he used the Clooney photo instead. But the only thing different is the color as you mentioned and the "Fairey style" (tracing and posterization) - other than that he added some elements which would all group as 1 change. It's definitely not a different pose or angle. So as I mentioned already he really only has made 3 fundamental changes when the precedent puts it at at least 5 to get away with it. If it was that cut and dry of a win for Fairey like your friend says this thing should have been over already. And the fact that it was a benefit print doesn't matter as far as copyright law is concerned. |
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by bobbymeachamjr on Oct 20, 2009 17:11:24 GMT 1, Distinctly Fairey style? With the tech boom vectorizing images and in particular portraits have been a popular style among graphic designers for the last 10 years or so. He might have a good eye for choosing an appropriate photo but not sure where the concept part comes in. To me, its the same as when we receive source photos from a photo shoot. Theres a whole process of touching up, enhancing, stylizing, cropping the image. The final product looks "drastically" different. The retouchers don't go around claiming the finished photos are theirs.
Distinctly Fairey style? With the tech boom vectorizing images and in particular portraits have been a popular style among graphic designers for the last 10 years or so. He might have a good eye for choosing an appropriate photo but not sure where the concept part comes in. To me, its the same as when we receive source photos from a photo shoot. Theres a whole process of touching up, enhancing, stylizing, cropping the image. The final product looks "drastically" different. The retouchers don't go around claiming the finished photos are theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by Happy Shopper on Oct 20, 2009 17:17:08 GMT 1,
I'm not sure I'd take much legal advise from that site.
It'd be handy if they'd used the correct "Original".
It's not an "Angle Change". The "New" work has clearly used a different photograph!
I'm not sure I'd take much legal advise from that site. It'd be handy if they'd used the correct "Original". It's not an "Angle Change". The "New" work has clearly used a different photograph! |
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by krevice on Oct 20, 2009 17:59:17 GMT 1, Agree with snausages on this...Shep is great graphic designer and his urban assault of posterization is his staple trademark. But for happyshopper to infer that Glaser, a trailblazer whose directness and simplistic images captured imaginations, is merely a graphic designer and not an artist is a true injustice
The majority of sheps iconic images were not formed from his pen but rather someones lens ie. Glenn Friedman, Martha Coopper, Al Rockoff, etc. And for Shep to fight this case and not give credit (or reparations) to Mannie Garcia until he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar is a disgrace.
Agree with snausages on this...Shep is great graphic designer and his urban assault of posterization is his staple trademark. But for happyshopper to infer that Glaser, a trailblazer whose directness and simplistic images captured imaginations, is merely a graphic designer and not an artist is a true injustice
The majority of sheps iconic images were not formed from his pen but rather someones lens ie. Glenn Friedman, Martha Coopper, Al Rockoff, etc. And for Shep to fight this case and not give credit (or reparations) to Mannie Garcia until he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar is a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by bobbymeachamjr on Oct 20, 2009 19:27:27 GMT 1, Happyshopper, your Glaser comment warrants no response. Visit the moma one day...
Happyshopper, your Glaser comment warrants no response. Visit the moma one day...
|
|
|
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by Happy Shopper on Oct 20, 2009 20:31:11 GMT 1, Happyshopper, your Glaser comment warrants no response. Visit the moma one day...
Nice response
I love his design. He's a legend. Not in question. But he can have an opinion, as we all can, and not always be right.
Happyshopper, your Glaser comment warrants no response. Visit the moma one day... Nice response I love his design. He's a legend. Not in question. But he can have an opinion, as we all can, and not always be right. |
|
BK83
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,604
๐๐ป 10
October 2006
|
Shepard Fairey - Submitting False Images, by BK83 on Oct 21, 2009 4:01:55 GMT 1, 
|
|
