General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShepard Fairey Pleads Guilty Over Obama ‘Hope’ Image (Feb)
Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (4)
The street artist Shepard Fairey, whose Hope campaign poster of Barack Obama became an enduring symbol of his last presidential campaign, pleaded guilty Friday to a charge stemming from his misconduct in trying to bolster claims in a lawsuit over which photograph had been used as a basis for the poster.
Mr. Fairey, 42, sued The Associated Press in 2009 after it contended he had infringed on the copyright of one of its photographs in creating the poster. Mr. Fairey had claimed in his suit that he had used a different photograph of Mr. Obama, but later admitted that he had been mistaken and had tried to conceal his mistake, by destroying documents and fabricating others.
Mr. Fairey, of Los Angeles, pleaded to one count of criminal contempt and could face up to six months in prison. A prosecutor, Daniel W. Levy, told the magistrate judge, Frank Maas, that the government was likely to seek some term of imprisonment for Mr. Fairey, who will be sentenced on July 16.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/shepard-fairey-pleads-guilty-over-obama-hope-image/
Shepard Fairey, serial tracer.
On edit:
Just to be clear, Fairey isn't in trouble because he used the image for his poster. He's in trouble because he used the image without attribution, then denied it & sued AP, then destroyed evidence and created fake evidence in order to win the suit that *he* instigated.
The serial tracer didn't want to pay a fee for the photo, but he has no problem going after others for infringement of copyright where his own work is concerned.
And since his "own" work consists of other people's unattributed images with an "Obey" logo pasted on them in a stance of faux-rebellion used to sell T-shirts, it's ironic.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
Ian David
(69,059 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)So, he's been walking free for two months. Bet that'll give you nightmares.
More
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Okay, so the man used a photo as the basis for his creation of a piece of art in a totally different media form. He altered the image in his interpretation of the image. Copyrighting has gotten ridiculous. The most recent idiocy in copyright is a celebrity's baby's name--cant remember whether it's Jennifer Lopez or Beyonce's baby.
I have dibs to copyright the letter "s".
Ian David
(69,059 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)All he needed to do from the beginning was acknowledge the use of the photo.
He preferred to pretend he hadn't used it because he made more money that way.
Javaman
(62,521 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The whole matter would be civil - there must be something in the civil procedure that he refused to comply with - which is rarely going to be necessary in a civil suit.
Maybe the guy is just temperamental and can't follow boring rules of civil procedure.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)he lied and destroyed evidence in the suit *he* initiated = contempt.
frylock
(34,825 posts)what did ansel do that was so great? it's not like he created half dome ffs. haters gonna hate i guess.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Then he goes after people who appropriate his work for copyright violations.
Not to mention he appropriates the work of left-wing artists little-known in the US, brands it with his stupid logos & copyright and styles himself a rebel against the machine while making big bank.
Big fat fraud.
Still from director Michael Andersons 1956 film adaptation of George Orwells cautionary story of a dystopic future, 1984. Right: Fairey unmistakably stole his image from the "Big Brother is Watching You" propaganda posters used in Andersons film, without crediting the source.
Ver Sacrum - Koloman Moser 1901. Front cover illustration for the Vienna Secession magazine, Ver Sacrum
Fairey's ripped-off poster version of Mosers art
Left: Faireys plagiarized poster. Right: Original street poster from Czechoslovakias, Prague Spring - Artist unknown 1968. The poster depicts a Soviet Red Army soldier in 1945 as a liberator, then as an oppressor in 1968.
One Big Union - Ralph "Bingo" Chaplin. 1917. Artwork created for the Industrial Workers of the World.
T-shirt created by Fairey for his OBEY clothing line. Neither Chaplin nor the IWW are given any credit by Fairey.
Untitled Silk-screen poster - Rene Mederos, Cuba, 1972. This double portrait by one of Cubas most famous poster artists depicts the revolutionaries Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos.
Screenshot taken from the "Bombing Science" website 7/18/2007, where the Fairey rip-off of Mederos poster was being sold as a T-shirt. Fairey printed the graphic without permission from the Mederos estate.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
It's completely laughable to compare Fairey to Ansel Adams.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)He needs a bigger fine. Jail time a bit extensive just massive FINES.
frylock
(34,825 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Fairey *initiated* the suit and falsified and destroyed evidence so he wouldn't have to pay a fee, i.e., so he could make more money from silkscreening someone else's picture.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)To me, hating is illogically not liking something just because it's popular.
This OP is pointing out this guy is a fraud of an artist. Seems like a dick move to copy someone else's art, not credit them, sell it for money and sue anyone who who does the same to you and, worse, sue someone for accusing you of doing exactly what you did.
Seriously, fuck that guy.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Perfectly documented.
Even Fairey's original work is nothing more than fractal/paisley print that the hipster art/activist scene goes gaga over.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)appropriates the labor of the unknown & the public sphere, brands it as his own & vigorously defends his "intellectual property," sells it with a phoney left-sounding vocabulary of "rebellion".
and when he gets caught, cheats and tries to cover up.
then tries to justify it with an airy-fairey rationale of "referencing" and "detourning" -- though the images he "references" are overwhelming images that are little-known to the general public & mostly little-known to the art world.
you can only "reference" when your audience knows what the reference is -- i.e., a soup can.
when they don't, it's just plain theft.