| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Update on Shepard Fairey Case
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
 |
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 11:44 PM on 05.28.10 |
| ->> Damn!! I was hoping to read that there had been a misidentification and that dude that the bull gored was actually Shepard F. I guess I will have to keep reading the "Pedestrian Struck by Runaway Truck" stories and keep hoping. |
|
Daniel Celvi, Photographer
|
Schaumburg | IL | United States | Posted: 2:34 AM on 05.29.10 |
->> So what I keep wondering about this case, and I know Fairey used the photo as source material, but does that qualify as violating the copyright? It seems it went for a long time unnoticed that the print was even made from a particular picture (meaning, it was changed significantly enough that it was un-recognizable from the original), and at that it wasn't intrinsically the picture that was being copied–it was a look from a person at a public event. Did this same issue happen with the Che picture? I've read a couple articles about the photographer who took the picture, but I don't recall if a lawsuit had ever been filed or if it did, how it ended. And how do they claim that the value of the picture had been affected negatively if no one actually noticed that it was the source for the print for so long? And who did all the merchandising of the print after this? Is that affecting this case?
This isn't to defend or condemn Shephard Fairey or the AP, just curious how this qualifies as copyright infringement if it wasn't the photograph that was copied, but a person in the photograph. And what if the picture had been printed in a newspaper or something? At that point, it kind of enters the public memory, you know–that whole "first draft of history" thing. Seems like this would be a recurring issue of photos of famous people, one that for some reason I doubt gets settled in a clean way very often. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> "...I know Fairey used the photo as source material..."
Daniel,
This is what's known as a "derivative work." Derivative works are among the rights reserved to the author under copyright law.
"It seems it went for a long time unnoticed that the print was even made from a particular picture"
But it was eventually recognized. That's all that's required.
The judge in the matter has also stated that The AP is likely to prevail. That's a pretty good indicator that the law is on the side of the plaintiff.
--Mark |
|
Daniel Celvi, Photographer
|
Schaumburg | IL | United States | Posted: 5:15 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> I know derivative works, but I guess I should more clearly state where my issue lies with this case: this wasn't a posed photograph. If this were a photo of Obama in a posed, closed situation where part of the photographer's work had been creating the look, that's easy–case closed AP wins. But as is, this was a candid shot–Fairey copied the pose in the photo, which was not created in any way by the photographer.
And what if another photographer shot the president in a similar position? I'm sure it's happened–it's Obama looking up, slightly. Does that weigh in to the case? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> Daniel,
It may not seem intuitive to you, but all of the things that you mentioned are covered under copyright law. You can't take an image that I've shot and legally created a derivative work from it.
--Mark |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
James Spiker, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 4:13 PM on 01.12.11 |
->> I always found this copyright suit compared to the Daniel Moore trademark suit to be truly fascinating... The media championed unlicensed artistic renderings from significant moments at historic Alabama sporting events because the 1st Amendment supersedes collegiate trademarks.
However, they expect for you to obtain a license for any artistic rendering you create that might appear similar to one of their photos...such as an artistic rendering of a significant sporting event that will inherently resemble any copyrighted AP photos captured at the same event??? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:31 PM on 01.12.11 |
->> John,
What do you mean when you say, "The media championed unlicensed artistic renderings from significant moments at historic Alabama sporting events...?" Details?
--Mark |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 12:59 AM on 01.13.11 |
| ->> Mark, there were at least a half dozen major newspapers who requested to submit Amicus briefs on Moore's behalf...so I made the leap that print media feared any potential mandate that could require proper licensing arrangements each time they photographed trademarked subjects. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|