This week, we've explored the recently settled dispute between street artist Shepard Fairey and media giant Associated Press regarding the iconic "Hope" poster created by Fairey for the Obama campaign in 2008. Fairey used an image copyrighted by the Associated Press in creating the image, asserting the principle of fair use, and the AP has asserted that by using the photo without license, Fairey violated copyright law.
My first feeling, when viewing the photo and the poster side by side, was that the resemblance in the physical stance of Mr. Obama in the two works is virtually identical, however in my mind the resemblance ends there. The photo, while nicely composed, does not hold a candle to the striking and iconic image created by Mr. Fairey. In fact, had the photos not been side by side, with foreknowledge of the relationship, I would not have associated the photo with the poster. To me, that is the true definition of "transformative". I also feel that Mr. Fairey's transformation of the original has raised the value of the original photo, and that the AP has probably had more requests to license the original photo based on Mr. Fairey's interpretation than they ever would have had without it. To me, they have already profited from Mr. Fairey's use, with or without an original license.
Ultimately, the AP may feel like their photo was the inspiration for the campaign image, the real inspiration was the man and the electricity and excitement that the campaign generated. Both the photo and the image were theoretically available to be used by the campaign, and only one of them was chosen: Mr. Fairey's image, which encapsulated the excitement and emotion of the campaign.
I'm glad that all parties have come to an agreement they can live with, but I can't help but feel that Fairey was unfairly dragged through the mud.
My first feeling, when viewing the photo and the poster side by side, was that the resemblance in the physical stance of Mr. Obama in the two works is virtually identical, however in my mind the resemblance ends there. The photo, while nicely composed, does not hold a candle to the striking and iconic image created by Mr. Fairey. In fact, had the photos not been side by side, with foreknowledge of the relationship, I would not have associated the photo with the poster. To me, that is the true definition of "transformative". I also feel that Mr. Fairey's transformation of the original has raised the value of the original photo, and that the AP has probably had more requests to license the original photo based on Mr. Fairey's interpretation than they ever would have had without it. To me, they have already profited from Mr. Fairey's use, with or without an original license.
Ultimately, the AP may feel like their photo was the inspiration for the campaign image, the real inspiration was the man and the electricity and excitement that the campaign generated. Both the photo and the image were theoretically available to be used by the campaign, and only one of them was chosen: Mr. Fairey's image, which encapsulated the excitement and emotion of the campaign.
I'm glad that all parties have come to an agreement they can live with, but I can't help but feel that Fairey was unfairly dragged through the mud.
Mr. Fairey got GREAT press and lots of it, don't feel too sorry for him. He was unknown until this little stunt and now he gets to work for AP legitimately, not too bad a deal.
ReplyDelete