By now you’ve heard of Shepard Fairey, right? He’s the guy who did the creepy, Soviet-style “Hope” poster that you can’t avoid no matter where you go. Or if you can avoid it, you can’t avoid all the parodies. (There’s even a site called Obamicon.me that lets you create your own Fairey-style posters.) Before that, the dude was best known for a street art campaign using the likeness of wrestling great Andre the Giant. Plus his name is fun to say. Try it. “Shepard Fairey.” See?
Now Fairey’s being sued by the Associated Press for basing that “Hope” poster on one of their photos without permission. I’m no copyright lawyer, but as the A.V. Club blog points out, “Umm, Barack Obama looks like that all the time.” And Fairey’s claim of fair use seems strong. Whatever you think of the poster, he took the original photo and made something different out of it. It’s not illegal to suck.
With that in mind, why is he doing this?
An Austin, Texas, artist named Baxter Orr made a parody of Fairey’s Andre the Giant design, adorning it with a SARS mask and the title “Protect Yourself.” Last April, Fairey mobilized his legal team to send Orr a cease and desist order threatening legal action against him.
If Shepard Fairey takes somebody else’s work and tweaks it a little bit to make whatever point he’s trying to make, that’s art. That’s deconstruction. That’s fair use. But if you take Shepard Fairey’s work and tweak it a little bit to make whatever point you’re trying to make… “Stop, thief! Parasite!!”
It’s also funny how Fairey is still trying to perpetuate his “anti-authoritarian” image, even though he’s now best known for helping Barack Obama become the biggest authority figure in the entire world. And Fairey’s obviously rich enough to sue anybody who displeases him. What a rebel. What an edgy countercultural icon. “Ooooh, I got arrested! The Man’s tryin’ to keep me down! Thank you for shopping at Nordstrom.”
For more on this hypocrite, see Media Nation, the Austin Chronicle, and Animal New York.
Related posts:
- Shepard Fairey Is a Liar By his own admission! In addition to being a plagiarist...
- Shepard Fairey Continues to Lose Hope If you thought the Associated Press was going to let...
- Shepard Fairey Says “Nope” to Graffiti Artists Hope-hyping huckster Shepard Fairey is now painting his critics with...
I’m gonna buy one of each! I’ll hang my Fairey right next to my LeRoy Nieman, and I’ll hang the Orr along side the Nagles. It’ll be a real life “Museum of Suckitude!”
Pasta you barabrian, how dare you mix your impressionist art with pop icon art.
Sammy “the Bull” Gravano is dying of AIDs in prison.
Sorry, Gravano is dying of Grave’s disease, not AIDs.
Either way as long as he’s dead.
I was under the IMPRESSION they all sucked.
**God, I am so sorry**
That black and white face is supposed to be Andre the Giant? I never got that. Guess I’m a Philistine.
Can we add that ‘painter of light’ guy to Pasta’s Museum of Suckitude?
First I will admit that Shepard Fairey is totally one of my pretend artist boyfriends so I am fully biased. It does require a certain appreciation of lowbrow/underground/street art to enjoy this kind of work.
That said, you can clearly see how these examples are totally different. Fairey used an image as a basis for creating a piece using his own style and techiques – which by the way is the way many of his pieces work.
In the other example someone took an image that Fairey created of Andre the Giant and slapped a mask on it without adding a single bit of inspiration to it.
Or, consider Obama Hope = Worhol’s Campbell soup art.
Progresso uses that art with their own name on the label as a promotion.
Now see the the difference?
MC Mom–Kinkade is featured in the museum lobby.
Actually, last fall I found this to be a better representation of said “art” and who should be leading the U.S.A.
http://www.dccomics.com/mad/media/downloads/hopeless_poster.jpg
Nivek, that’s lovely.
No. Who decides how much “inspiration” is sufficient?
Beige and Nivek, I agree and he’d probably be the best president we ever had.
Boy miaox, are you off the mark.
I’ve got the same exact degree that Fairey has, different schools, same caliber.
The one rule they beat us upside the head with daily is:
IF IT’S COPYRIGHTED, DON’T USE IT.
Wanna change the color? Too bad; it’s not your property to pilfer. Wanna pixellate it? Too bad. Wanna stretch it, cut it, flip it around, pee on it? TOO DAMN BAD.
Here’s an excellent discussion of copyright infringement from the artist perspective:
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/shepard-fairey-obey-copyright.html
The other tidbit you won’t find in most news articles on the subject is that as illustration majors, we are required to take photography courses. This is so that we have the ability to aquire our own images, avoiding copyright problems. Fairey has the skill set to go out there and capture his own base images, yet he chose the lazy way out.
miaox wrote: “Fairey used an image as a basis for creating a piece using his own style and techiques – which by the way is the way many of his pieces work.”
Nope, Fairey lifted an image and modified it with his own treatment. Creating an image and modifying an image are two distinct actions. One is unique, the other duplicates. The Mona Lisa is still the Mona Lisa when I drag it into Kinko’s and press the green button.
miaox wrote: “…you can clearly see how these examples are totally different.”
Actually, to a trained eye, they’re identical except for treatment. The pose is a rather unique full face with a 3/4 slant and an upwards tilt; not your everyday pose. The shadowing overlaps directly; Fairey copied the lines of light and dark, not even bothering to simplify the shapes much. The fact that they can be superimposed perfectly says that Fairey traced rather than redrew the eyes and other features. Tracing is a big no-no in creating work that is “distinct yet derivative”.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to cite Warhol as your grandfather case. Warhol was tied up by the legal system more than once over infringement. Yes, Campbells dropped their suit but not because it was without merit. Additionally, Warhol paid out settlements to at least 3 other photographers that we know of. That’s tantamount to admitting infringement.
Quick, kinda off-topic question here. When did surgical masks become known as SARS masks? I’ve noticed them being referred to as such in lots of media in the last few years. Why not call them flu masks? Hell, the flu kills more people on Earth in a month than SARS has in all of recorded history.
If AP’s photography is art, then Fairey took someone else’s art and changed it, making his own art.
If Fairey’s art is art, then Baxter Orr took someone else’s art and changed it, making his own art.
Now see the difference?
I think that is the OBEY PROPAGANDA guy. I have a closet full of his shirts
I won’t even pretend to know anything about the artists you all are talking about or the intricacies of copyright infringement but I will share my favorite version of this poster:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/snob.jpg
I believe parody (as in the Malkin thing) is protected speech, in terms of copyright violation/lack thereof.
Rocko, I’d love to carry you around in my pocket.
In a way, I can see Fairey’s point of view: he did a painting based off a photograph. Used a different medium to recreate the image seen in the AP photo. There’s a marked contrast between a painting and a photograph. Baxter Orr, however, appears as if he used the same medium for his picture.
However, BOTH of them are wrong for using copyrighted images to base their work off of. I could make a Versace dress from toiletpaper, it’s my *production* based off someone else’s work, made in toilet paper rather than fabric, but the design isn’t my own and I copied it. This could have all been avoided if Fairey had went to the AP and asked for permission.
I do find the SARS-related “Andre” picture as entirely lacking originality. If you’re going to lift and modify someone else’s work, at least put your own unique spin to it. Any monkey with Windows Paint could do Orr’s picture.
Thanks for saying “Soviet style.”
Airy Fairey, so far as I can see, is incapable of anything original: not only was it someone else’s poster, but it’s the freaking Stalin poster! All he did was take a picture that wasn’t his and paste it into a design that wasn’t his and kicked back to collect the money.
No, there is no difference. Gee you probably wanna have sex with him too.
Minnow, your trained eyes should re-read what I said.
I never said that Fairey was or was not guilty of copyright infringement. My point was that the two examples cited are not comparable. I did not say Warhol was or was not guilty of copyright infringement, so I am not saying “Warhol did it why can’t Fairey BAAAAWWWWWWW!!!” Again, I was comparing what the difference is between a stylized version of an image versus slapping something else on top of an image. Most people have heard of Warhol and his soup cans so I used a pop culture reference. Since my problem is with the comparison I could also have said “apples and oranges” but I thought it would be more helpful to state specifics rather than generalities. Oh and I am also well trained but I’m not running around screaming about it. <— of course I mean no real ill will here, just that you are mistaken in your assumption that you know more than anyone (cough cough me for example cough cough) about lines and light and shadow etc.
also, when you go back and read it again, you will see that I said that examples of Fairey’s work and the Orr one, not the original AP photo and Fairey’s work.
GO ahead, I’ll wait. If you want to look over your degree again in order to feel smug and stroke your lil pet in your pocket in the meantime, that’s fine. But please at least understand what point someone is making before you go off on a misdirected rant.
of course
Why are you taking criticism of Shepard Fairey as a personal insult?Some jerk is impersonating screen names.I’m personally insulted by someone who trots out info in a superior fashion (“The other tidbit you won’t find in most news articles on the subject…”)to tell ME personally that I don’t know what I am talking about. When that person completely misunderstood my point entirely.
Am I writing in another alien language so that no one seems to understand me? The point of this article, as far as I can tell, is that Fairey is a hypocrite because he made exhibit A(HOPE) from exhibit B(AP photo) and says he can, BUT he says that exhibit C (OBEY face) cannot be used for exhibit D (Orr masked face). Therefore as I understand it, the hypocrisy lies in the COMPARISON OF EXHIBIT A TO EXHIBIT D. And again, they are not comparable.
Perhaps if I quote Ani who is saying part of the same thing you see my point?
“I do find the SARS-related “Andre” picture as entirely lacking originality. If you’re going to lift and modify someone else’s work, at least put your own unique spin to it. Any monkey with Windows Paint could do Orr’s picture”
That is all.
Gee you probably wanna have sex with him too.
Why are you taking criticism of Shepard Fairey as a personal insult?
^^^^
um also I didn’t write that
Ah. Fixed.
Kind of, yeah.
And who decides when the “spin” is unique enough?
miaox
I don’t think the hypocrisy is so much that “this isn’t plagiarism, but that is” so much as “this is defensible via fair use and that isn’t.” Fair use, as I’m sure you’re quite aware, includes several criterion as to what constitutes fair use and what doesn’t. True, they both rely on different criterion for fair use, but both have very reasonable claims for their respective criterion which they are relying on. Therefore, I think the hypocrisy is more along the lines of Fairey’s eagerness to look for how his derivative work should be considered as fair use, but not being willing to recognize that another claim of fair use is valid either simply because it’s based on a different criterion or (in my opinion, more likely), because Fairey can benefit if he saves his butt in one case and makes sure he gets a cut of some money in another.
After cafefully considering your arguement, I have decided to put my fingers in my ears and say LA LA LA!
Seriously, I do see your point and that is a very valid point.
but i still think they are totally incomparable examples *ducks*
Of course: Fairey took somebody else’s work and changed it around to his own ends, and the other guy took Fairey’s work and changed it around to his own ends. The contrast is glaring.
But it’s DIFFERENT! WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT!!!???
Wow miaox.
I think you need to take a few steps back from the computer keyboard and do some deep breathing.
Far more interesting than anything you’ve said is why you went off the deep end.
If you were debating the dietary habits of North Atlantic crustaceans with a lobster fisherman, then that’s a bit of info which might elevate the level of conversation. Same thing if you’re arguing bomb construction with a physicist or flea bites with a dog.
So next time, instead of jumping all over somebody, why don’t you lay your own cards out on the table? Then we can have a nice chat, with actual points and theories and stuff.
Your problem is with you, not me.
Ani wrote: “I could make a Versace dress from toiletpaper, it’s my *production* based off someone else’s work, made in toilet paper rather than fabric, but the design isn’t my own and I copied it.”
I like your analogy, Ani.
In your TP Dress case, you’re making derivative work. Nobody in their right mind is going to mistake your Charmin dress with something sold on Rodeo Drive. I’m also thinking that 95% of your audience won’t immediately see the connection between your dress and Donatella’s, so you’re going to have to let them in on the joke in order to make your statement on modern fashion. The fact that the public doesn’t immediately get the connection will save your butt in civil court.
But that’s not what Fairey has done.
It seems to me that Fairey broke into the Versace cutting room and chose a pattern from the file cabinet. He chose an old one, kind’a obscure, unlikely to be noticed. He then used Donatella’s scissors to cut his silk and sewed the dress on Gianni’s gem studded sewing machine. Fairey then sold copies of his dress to half the American public without crediting any of his source material.
Oh, and if it helps the discussion (this is not directed at Ani, just a general statement)…
I think folks are getting hung up on the idea that the original work was a photograph and the Fairey work is a “painting”. If the original was sculpture, how does that change the debate? Why should photograpy merit less copyright status?
BTW, I don’t know for sure (miaox can tell us) that Fairey actually “paints”… you know, like a guy in a beret with his thumb in the air? The fact that the photograph and the poster can be perfectly superimposed over each other means it’s digital copying. Hand drawn or painted objects never duplicate the subject that precisely.
If Fairey had redrawn the image with his own little fingers, we wouldn’t be debating this quite so strenuously.
I’m surprised Fairey wasn’t at that Florida rally asking for his kitchen sink… ie, Obama to make the big, bad, Obama-ass-kissing AP go away from his little artistic world.
Minnow, I made my points very clear and you can’t even admit you were wrong when you went off on a tangent about the difference between the photo and the Hero when my comparison was between the Obey Face and SARS face.
And since you asked:
“Unique stencil, collage, photography and painting techniques have made him possibly the worlds most well-known street artist.”
I have not been insulting in my posts (except the one I didn’t write, I suppose)and when I try to add something from my point of view, explained as clearly as possible, it is insinuated that I am a naive rube. Just because you disagree doesn’t make you right, nor does it make me right. That’s why the courts are deciding the fair use in this issue, not you and me.
The important thing is that you make sense to you.
Simon, if I weren’t happily married I would SO stalk you. That was masterful.
Sticking with the insanity defense, eh miaox?
Good for you. Go with what works.
“Ooooh, I got arrested! The Man’s tryin’ to keep me down! Thank you for shopping at Nordstrom.”
Laugh my butt off. That’s beautiful.