Thursday, March 3, 2011

Fairey Fairey Fair

So I hadn't heard about Shepard Fairey and his contribution to the Obama campaign. I've done some research this week, and I don't think he was trying to do anything wrong nor should he be going through this trial. He took an image and used it to support someone he admired, someone he wanted to help out. He wasn't trying to benefit from it, and "he wasn't paid to do it, and he wasn't convinced to do it"--completely harmless (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pollock/the-importance-of-shepard_b_167926.html). "He was just an aware and engaged citizen who used his talents to try and influence the electorate the way that he saw fit," and sadly, he is now being criticized and is facing a battle with the AP.

I was glad to learn to hear that instead of him being in a heap of trouble "the AP and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law" (
http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.html). Fairey is being a trooper and continuing to show how he really meant no harm by " agreeing that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP" (http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.html). Fairey and the AP are even amiable enough to "agree to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs," and it appears that things can be just peachy between the two (http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.html).

In my opinion Fairey could have used Creative Commons for sure and then he wouldn't be in this mess at all. I unders
tand that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, but there are laws and just like the rest of us he has to obey them as well. Check out Creative Commons Mr. Fairey and keep on doin what you do!

Check out my Obanization:

4 comments:

  1. As much as having the right to be involved in public affairs it comes to a certain limit when it crashes with copyright law. He used the the original photograph as a base for his work and basically colored in between the lines and added some text. It's something so simple that it can be turned into an application for anyone wanting to do the same with any photograph. Now, whether art is determined by how long it takes to create is speculative. Simplicity of the work is made possible by technology and is also speculative on determining any kind of art fairly used. I think what could go against his case the most is how easily his work can be applied. In my opinion, as an avid Photoshop user, it's just too darn easy to apply this same exact effect. Another thing is, he's known to not credit his sources time and time again for other derivative works and if you check out his gallery, all of it has the same style. I know this won't have anything to do with the case and it most likely won't be referenced to, yet to me it seems unethical in the way he creates his "art".

    http://obeygiant.com/industries

    ReplyDelete
  2. your picture you made came out great!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great Picture! You are right that he was not trying to do anything wrong , he just used a photo he got off Google and made it into something new. Before using a photo you need to know where it is from and if you have the right to use it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Derrick you make a very solid argument for why Fairey is not the innocent he likes to make himself out to be.

    ReplyDelete