When you do art, there are always a legal problem around the corner. Or, more accurately, when you do any form of street art, there is.
Fairely has become famous, both for his "OBEY" slogan and images of Andre the Giant, and the "HOPE" posters of Obama. His images are iconic and known the world over, but it has always come at the price of other artists. I've seen him defended countless times, and rightfully so; most of what he does falls under "Fair Use" laws and I fully support them. At the same time, a double standard constantly comes up. Frankly, there is a lot of issues in the case and a lot of ground to cover, and it's up to me to kinda give you a round down that is easy to digest, so here goes:
Above us are two images. On the left is the "Big Brother is Watching" poster from the 1956 film adaption of the George Orwell novel, 1984. On the right is Fairely's poster. It can, and has, been argued that Fairely simply "re-created" the image entirely and put his own spin on it. That's true, he did give it a different spin. The problem, though, is that it's still 90% recognizable as the original image. No credit was given to the original artist or film maker, no one was given compensation, and he didn't have permission to use the image for anything.
Now, let's look at another case:
This time, we have a different artist and a different case. On the left, we have an original piece of art and t-shirt by artist Jess Fink. On the right is an image NewBreedGirl is using. Looks similar, doesn't it!
Jess Fink had an image, design, and concept stolen by NewBreedGirl and sent them a letter to stop making it. It worked.
The company apologized and it was settled the matter out of court.But when it was found out that the image was stolen, a massive outcry from artists and designers came out at the anger and outrage that the mans idea and concept was stolen. Angry letters and protests images were created in response. Artists agreed: This wasn't fair use, this wasn't a case of basically creating something your own and being inspired, it was 100% plagiarism.
Again,
NewBreedGirl ripped off another artist and this time the rip-off was a lot more obvious. The response from the artist?I can tell we're not happy about it, and are definitely dealing with it. It's hard enough out there striving for some level of originality – a moustache character with a moustache is pretty specific at least – so to have our Moustachio character ripped off so blatantly is really frustrating and annoying. Independent artists and designers like us are constantly striving for and succeeding in coming up with interesting, compelling concepts and visuals, and while most celebrate and enjoy them, some opportunistic, unoriginal hacks can't help but try to cash in.Sad, isn't it?
Then you have this case where Hot Topic (or a company that hot Topic bought from) stole a piece of artwork from someone after using Google Image Search for a piece of "Pirate Girl" artwork.
As you can see, they stole the image and ripped out the persons name. Blatant copyright infringement and abuse? Unfair use? Yes, yes, and yes.
So, we've just seen 3 cases where companies stole artwork from an artist and used it for their own personal profit and gain. We've seen outrage in response to this, and we've seen that most of the time the plagiarist admits defeat and moves on his way.
Now we have the image of Fairey's "Hope" Poster:
We're left with the question of if this falls within "Fair Use" and if this is protected. The Huffington Post made a good statement about how, i
n 2006, a case was bought up against an artist who used a woman's face without permission. The judge said that the use of the image was "different enough" to justify using it. In turn, the case was dismissed. So, in turn, is this protected as well? Does the Associated Press have a case on which to sue?
Yes... and no. Most of the people who are defending Shepard are Obama supporters, and that's a fact. That doesn't mean that they don't have a point.
Duchamp was the man who created the DaDaist movement by basically taking a urinal to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and saying, "Hey, this is my latest piece." In turn, a controversy about if it really was "art" or not was created and the entire concept of "found art" and re-purposing items for art was, in short, created. Well, not really, but in the modern world it was.
I bring up Duchamp because Fairey is, in a lot of ways, doing the same thing: Taking an existing image and recreating it into a new context. The problem, though, is in how he does it and what it means.
Let me boil down what (I think) he did: He took the image into Illustrator, traced it, added his own personal touch, and in the end, created his own take on the image. He traced the image, he put his own vision and idea into it, created a new platform for it, and made it his own. Did he rip off someone for it?
Well, ask yourself this: I've pointed out 3 examples where an artist was ripped off by a larger company. These companies may have done exactly what Fairey did: They saw an image or idea, re-purposed it into their own vision, and made it "their own". The image created by/for the AP (or their freelancer, more accurately) was to make them money and convey an idea; Fairey did the same thing.
I think it's both. He did create his own version of the image, his own idea on how to use it. In turn, though, he used an image that is incredibly similar to the one that was already created and copyrighted.
To add insult to irony, Fairey supposedly threatened to sue someone who parodied his "OBEY" image:
The artist is Baxter Orr from Austin, TX. Funny, isn't it? Didn't this guy re-purpose the piece for his own use and made it his own? Isn't this a re-imaging of a piece?
In the end, it's a lesson any art student needs to learn early on: Be careful about what images you use.
For more on this issue, please check out this awesome article by artist Mark Vallen titled
"Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey."
Over the last 8 years, a small cottage industry developed and was created to insult and defame now-former President Bush. It was fun! Anti-Bush merchandise was everywhere and was fun to look at sometimes. Selling your own anti-Bush shirt meant being more clever and smart than the next guy... and getting there early. I didn't have either so my anti-Bush designs never took off.
