Discussions
Photos of Barack Obama, The Associated Press, Intellectual Property Rights, and Common Sense
Posted by Norski • 10/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: ap, hope [pster, intellectual property, law, obama, photo, the associated press
You've probably heard about Shepard Fairey, the Obama "Hope" poster (pretty cool art), The Associated Press, and the legal hole Mr. Fairey's dug for himself.
I wrote a long (even for me) post about the intellectual property right angles of this mess: apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2009/10/photos-of-barack-obama-associated-pre...
Naturally, I'd like to have you all come and read that post, link to the articles, and learn that it isn't smart to rip off AP (in AP's opinion).
I'm inclined to see the case as a sort of Watergate situation: the initial act was a bad idea, but it was the attempted coverup that did the most damage.
The way I see it, when AP thinks it should have money for use of one of their photos - it's prudent to find out how much, and give it to them. As soon as possible.
It's like the 'good old days' in Chicago. Some offers you can't refuse.
User Comments
-
This is a shameless bump to a shameless blog promotion.
-
Seriously, though: There are aspects to this Fairey business that could affect quite a few bloggers.
No alarmism here: but it never hurts to know what the 800-pound gorillas of Western culture are doing. -
maybe someone will appoint a czar to sort this out...-
aaaAAAAAAAAIIIIIII!!!
-
lol
-
-
On the other hand, maybe somebody explained to the AP bigwigs how the Internet works. AP has a YouTube account - and they allow embedding.
Smart move.
Case in point: a couple of really cute and/or cunning raccoons:
apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2009/10/young-raccoons-vending-machine-and-we... -
Copyright Laws kill culture. Ask a folk singer.
You should check out "Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2" by Negativland.-
So you would suggest eliminating the possibility of earning a living through the creation of art, music or writing? What impact do you think that would have on "culture"? -
Middle ground would make a lot more sense than either eliminating copyright altogether (gee, wouldn't that make everything you post on your blog fair game for scrapers?) and enforcing it to the point of alienating people whose use brings fame and admiration not only to them but to you as well. Then again, the world in general isn't long on common sense.
It's frustrating for me to have a relatively obscure singer/songwriter get his music pulled from where I've posted it (NOT for download) because his label is overzealous about protecting copyright. Such behavior hurts them and him, as well as me. I may not get a lot of traffic, but none of it will now be able to listen to a song from his latest album. -
"So you would suggest eliminating the possibility of earning a living through the creation of art, music or writing?"
Why would I suggest that? Part of my income comes from providing creative services, such as illustration, clip art, photoshop brushes and fonts. But, I am not a giant multi-million dollar corporation so I don't have to act like one. I see plenty of people that use my work in unauthorized ways but do I loose sleep over it? No, because I realize the fact that anything on the internet could be/will be/has been "stolen". That is the beauty of the internet, freedom. If ones ideas are really so precious, maybe they should lock their ideas in a box and put them on 24 hour watch. The technology is there to copy, record and share all types of media and people are going to use it, copyright law or not. Does that really make them a horrible person or bad artist? Maybe, it makes them a better artist. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this debate.
"What impact do you think that would have on "culture"?"
If you eliminated the possibility of earning a living through creative works I think you would loose a lot of crappy artists that were just in it for a quick buck, but I don't think it would stop real artists from creating. It would actually improve the quality of art in some ways. Some of the greatest examples of our culture were not done for money. I doubt that the Lascaux cave paintings were created with the intention of becoming rich off of royalties.
All that needs to be done is to UPDATE the copyright laws.
-
-
My understanding is that Fairey knew the risks and opted to fight rather than pay up precisely because of the ramifications you reference. I'm at work and don't have time to look for it right now, but I saw a very interesting video interview with him a few months back in which he talked about the fact that he has the resources to fight a battle that many artists do not.
-
I haven't had time to read about it though I saw reference to it this weekend.
You're right though, the cover-up is the problem, and it's also a character assassin, in my opinion. I'm disappointed in him regardless - I mean it goes from having balls to being rather without them.-
He has also gone after other artists who have appropriated/repurposed his imagery, which is totally lame. Fairey is a bad example of someone who fully endorses or understands fair use.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
