Thoughts?

http://www.eandppub.com/2009/10/surpris ... -case.html

Ultimately it seems really silly to me as it is such a mundane and innocuous photo of Obama (who is photographed constantly) in the first place in addition to the image being altered to a graphic style so dramatically. A more talented artist could just have drawn the image by hand using various photos as a guide. Some of Shepard Fairey's other pieces use other people's work in a similar way with less or similar alterations so I am not sure why we have to hear again about the Obama Hope piece which is boring and has gained an undeserved celebrity regardless as far as I am concerned.

Besides all that, I'm personally sick of seeing the Hope piece everywhere I go and it hasn't had a positive influence on my opinion of Obama or SF.

I say this having liked a lot of the early obey work,
he has always been a biter and lacked all creativity.
The whole "obey" and "this is your god" etc etc
were directly lifted from they live.

He's been playing with copyright fire without getting burned for so long that he probably thought he could get away with it. While I strongly agree with him regarding excesses of copyright law and the need for better fair use clauses, the fact that he lied not only hurt his defense, but also weakened his advocate voice. It all does seem a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but as some of the commentators at that site suggested, it's possible that he was so aggressively pursued on the matter more for typically petty political reasons than for any potential loss of profit due to infringement. The AP's photograph would have been long-forgotten by now were it not for Shep's appropriation. However, since it's their copyrighted property, they were within their rights to sue on the basis of infringement.

Nasty stuff all around.

His fair use argument starts to fall apart when it becomes obvious its all just traced and made for profit, otherwise, I agree that copyright is totally out of control, and is heading toward being an EU version of copyright as opposed to what it was originally supposed to be in this country.

Warhol was much more than a one trick pony.

Agreed, moreover the realities of copyright law are dramatically different today than in the 1960s. Plus Warhol never lied about his sources. I'll ask around about this though ... I've always wondered if there was any potential conflict in his non-commissioned work.

My thoughts exactly.

When are Andre the Giant & Ming the Merciless going to sue?

SF was dumb to not fess up, but his 'rise to fame' was born of punk cut'n'paste graphics. I threw Warhol up there b/c I think SF is also interested in using images as icons. (I realize they are not on the same plane.)

If Obama had lost, nobody would be saying a thing.

i just had this discussion with my gf. she went warhol on the argument too, biff.

i think the "HOPE" image sucks and was a simplification of Fairey's work. It was real propaganda from a faux-propagandist; that shit pisses me off when its done with such a light touch. Candy coated for the election, Obama: a black man between the divide of red and blue thoughtfully looking towards the future......
San Francisco was literally polluted with this image around and after election time.

i am an Obama fan, just hate SF's HOPE picture. I agree with Dean that this high profile case won't do anything good for the Fair Use cause.

*edit for format not content