Fairey 'Fesses, Defense Decamps
So, if you've been playing the HOPE home version all of these months, the latest on the Shepard Fairey/Associated Press/Mannie Garcia hate triangle is that Shepard Fairey has apparently sabotaged his own Fair Use case. Depending on which news source you read, he either lied, submitted false evidence or made an error about which photograph was the basis for the HOPE image, and then either panicked, forgot or neglected to mention one or more of the first three actions.
Unfortunately for Shepard Fairey, any one of the above nine possible combinations has made it practically impossible for his defense team, the Fair Use Project, to continue to represent him in a court of law. (I take this to mean that we can all debate "Fair Use" from here to breakfast at the tops of our lungs but, when a client utters falsehoods under deposition, all bets are off. With this, I concur.)
Fairey is very sorry. I'm only sorry that this iconic image has been peripherally dragged through the mud. Regardless of whether this whole mess ends with a bang, whimper or court-mandated passings of damages hats, HOPE will retain its place in history.
Now, then. What of the photographer, Mannie Garcia's rights? These are conspicuously absent from the recent news articles. And what do you think? Let's discuss this, because there currently is no end to misinformation about this case, Marcel Duchamp, Andy Warhol, Shepard Fairey and the definition of "derivative work" floating around on the Internet.
Comments
It’s an interesting case. Unquestionably the artist ought not to have implicated himself with falsehood.
Not having seen the original photograph, it’s difficult to form an opinion about the how much it has to do with the art.
I also don’t know the background of this piece of art whether it was done by hand or computer of if that should way at all in the outcome of art?
It’s a bit difficult to understand copy right. I’m assuming by now it has become public domain since you are able to display it on your site.
I can’t see how altering a photograph to come up with a piece of art directly violates copyright. It doesn’t have the appearance of a photograph. Just the rendering of a likeness of the man in a moment frozen in Time.