As some of you may know, artist Shepard Fairey is involved in a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press over his famous Obama / Hope piece, which was based on a photograph taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia. The Huffington Post reports that the AP “has no case” against Fairey: his actions added value to the original and helped its commercial marketability more than hurt it. Hey, we can relate.
Shepard posted a lengthy update on Tuesday, which can be read here. It’s a great read. Shep points out numerous examples of famous or otherwise prestigious and highly priced works of art based on photographs, and asserts that this very method was taught to him in art school, just as it was taught to me, with heaping spoonfuls of historical precedent.
Shep’s bottom line: “If the AP wins their case, [all] Obama art (or any other politician) that was based on a photo reference that was not licensed would be rendered illegal… I also think art that is critical of leaders that neither the subject or the photographer approve of [needs] to be a legal form of expression.”
Photo actually taken by Joseph Rose, while he and I were visiting Shepard at a gallery opening or some such shit in 2004 or thereabouts.
Oh, I’m not gonna get a photo credit!?
haha… i forgot if it was you or me who took that actual picture or what. yeah i can add a photo credit. ha.
Sticky issue. I want to stick up for both artists, Fairey and the original photographer, but mostly Fairey. When I was taking art classes, we always used photographs for reference or even as a basis for a painting, which I still do to this day, though the end result usually is far different from the original source, sometimes not even remotely recognizable.
Of course, I’m a nobody, so my paintings will never engender a copyright dispute. However, were I famous, or even semi-famous, there might be a lot more scrutiny of my use of photographs as source material. Fairey is taking the brunt because the original image was recognizable and disseminated on the net and many people saw it. This does not, however, invalidate his artistic creation.
As he points out, even the masters copied, updated or referenced existing works,as well as being inspired by them to create. In my opinion, Fairey has created a new artwork, and it should be protected as such. The difference between the original and his are enough to, in my mind, separate them artistically and in the minds of the public.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the whole AP lawsuit sounds like sour grapes to me. More power to Fairey. His work is amazing and very moving.