If Shepard Fairey can do it...

Shepard Fairey and his legal team have once again responded to the Associated Press. This time artist Shepard Fairey and his lawyer, Anthony Falzone of the Fair Use Project, suggest that the AP is hypocritical concerning their stance on copyright and the defense of “fair use”.

In a nut shell-- Fairey and Falzone have offered different examples of AP photographs of artwork-- from exhibit coverage and history in the making-- that were taken without “permission” -- all of which were taken for the purpose of reporting and newsgathering. Concerning the use of images without permission or licensing Fairey has boldly stated, “If the AP has the right to do what it’s done, then so do I.”.

Fairey and Falzone also suggest that the AP has listed the images for sale on The AP's image licensing database as a commercial product for "professional photo buyers.". However, sources have told me that the “professional photo buyers” are other news agencies and museums who desire to document the historic significance of the photographs. The AP also offers images for personal use-- such as a photograph of a historic event to hang in your home. However, I was not able to find any of the mentioned photographs listed for personal use.

Note: One thing I noticed about Shepard Fairey and Anthony Falzone’s statement is that they conveniently left out some key details about the photographs the AP offer for sale. Thus, I invite you to look at what the AP says about the images they offer for sale :

“AP Images is a source of images for professional photo buyers. However, you can purchase open edition reprints of AP photos for home or personal use through our partner Pictopia. Using state-of-the-art laser enlargers to produce museum-grade photographs and special archival materials in production and framing, Pictopia creates images that will last a lifetime. Images purchased for personal use may not be used commercially (in publications, brochures, advertisements, copies to sell, etc.) or reproduced for any use.”

Shepard Fairey’s recent statement can be found on his Obeygiant website as well as his blog on The Huffing Post . Know in advance that the Huffington Post moderator will most likely not accept a comment if the comment sides with the AP on this case or points out specific contradictions involving Shepard Fairey & Obey Giant Art Inc. concerning “fair use“.

Note: Keep in mind that Shepard Fairey is known for sending cease-and-desist letters to artists who comment on or parody his widely known artwork. In other words, you probably won’t find Baxter Orr or the creator of Steelerbaby mentioned in the comment section of The Huffington Post article titled, 'If the AP Has the Right to Do What It’s Done, Then So Do I'. Why? Because Shepard Fairey is not the champion of “fair use“ that he portrays himself to be.

Allow me to expose some of the contradictions of Shepard Fairey’s recent statement. Fairey declares, “As I have stated before I am fighting the AP to protect the rights of all artists…”-- if that were true-- if Shepard Fairey felt so strongly about the rights of fellow artists-- wouldn’t he respect the exclusive rights that artists have under copyright? Or the exclusive rights that the estates of deceased artists, such as the Rene Mederos estate , have under copyright?

Rene Mederos’s work was still protected under copyright when Fairey decided to use one of his images for a shirt design without permission, credit, or compensation. His reason-- after being exposed for infringement I might add-- for not contacting the copyright owner can be found in an interview Shepard Fairey had with Mother Jones-- "Well, how would I ever pay this guy anyway because he's in Cuba?" . Obviously the estate of Rene Mederos had no problem contacting Shepard Fairey. The shirt design was pulled from production and distribution.

Fairey goes on to suggest that he would like everyone to have the same “broad rights of fair use and free expression“ that the media, such as the AP, has. What Fairey fails to understand is that the defense of “fair use” favors newsgathering sources. That said, I’m sure that Fairey and his company, Obey Giant Art Inc., would love to have the same extended interpretation of “fair use” for his commercial interest. One could suggest that Shepard Fairey needs an extended interpretation of "fair use" to dominate in order to have continued success. Does he really want that though? Perhaps members of the Fair Use Project are whispering in his ear?

If Shepard Fairey's statement were honest-- which it is not if you go by his past actions-- why did he send cease-and-desist letters to Baxter Orr and Steelerbaby ? Why did Fairey call Orr a “parasite”, “mimic”, and “profiteer” for claiming the defense of “fair use” after Orr made a social comment and parody of Fairey‘s widely known ObeyGiant image? Why did Obey Giant Art Inc. representative Olivia Perches state "Anything with 'Obey' on it they can't have." in response to Larkin Werner’s Steelerbaby store on Cafepress-- implying that only Shepard Fairey can use the word ‘obey' in a work of art or design? Fairey's words and actions don't mesh. Could it be that Shepard Fairey is obeying the advice of his peers?

Note: Shepard Fairey's Obey Giant Art Inc. forced Cafepress.com to remove the Steelerbaby merchandise due to the fact that it involved the word ‘obey’ and the phrase ‘Obey Steelerbaby’. However, Fairey apparently lifted the cease-and-desist order after bloggers and the media picked up on the story.

Fairey goes on to suggest that the AP can’t “have it both ways”-- in other words, Fairey suggests that the AP should not be able to photograph artwork and art exhibits while at the same time defending their photographs when artists use them as he did with his Obama posters. Fairey fails to grasp the fact that under current law media sources, such as the AP, can take said photographs. Fairey also fails to mention that, unlike him concerning aspects of his artwork, the AP gives credit to artists when they photograph artwork and art exhibits. The point-- Fairey needs to realize that people don’t necessarily change laws by breaking them or by making a mockery of current law.

There is a need to keep things in perspective-- Shepard Fairey is not some wide eyed teen-- he is a man inching ever-closer to 40 years of age who obviously knows how to use the law in his favor when individuals infringe upon his artwork. If his current position on “fair use” is honest he could have went about it differently prior to infringing on the copyright of the AP. I don’t think current copyright law will be changed when individuals, such as Shepard Fairey, prove that “fair use” should be limited in order to protect the rights of copyright owners.

That said, if Shepard Fairey and Anthony Falzone of the Fair Use Project desire to extend the interpretation of “fair use” to the point that copyright can be bypassed for all purposes they will find that the majority of the art community-- which they are obviously trying to gain support from-- will not support them. After all, one does not have to look back too far in order to see how artists come together in support of strong copyright.

I assume that Fairey does not remember the number of artists and art organizations that stood against the orphan works legislation in 2008-- which, if passed, would have made it harder for artists, photographers, and other creatives to defend the rights to their work in court. The legislation would have benefited copyright infringers-- which is why so many artists raised their voice against it.

Note: If the 2008 orphan works legislation had passed it would have removed some of the court awarded damages that discourage copyright infringers in the first place. It should be mentioned that Brad Holland , a notable illustrator, was one of the leading figures in the fight against the 2008 orphan works legislation.

As the saying goes, pick your battles. If the Associated Press loses to Shepard Fairey & Obey Giant Art Inc. it will set a legal precedent that will greatly harm artists who desire to uphold their copyright in court when individuals and companies, such as Obey Giant Art Inc., infringe upon their rights. If Shepard Fairey and his company, Obey Giant Art Inc., can do it other companies will have a better chance of doing it-- to fellow artists... to you.

A win for Shepard Fairey and his company, Obey Giant Art Inc., will be a loss for the art community-- it will be a loss for the majority of artists who enjoy the protection that copyright offers, a loss for art dealers who work very hard to establish a market for the artists they represent, and a loss to art collectors and other clients who desire-- and expect-- unique works of art.

Needless to say, I have responded to Shepard Fairey in the past and will continue to respond as long as he attempts to distract the public-- specifically the art community-- from what I assume are his true intentions. One should question the artist who says to “question everything” when the contradictions and hypocrisy of his words and actions are so apparent.

The fact that Shepard Fairey obviously feels that he can dupe the public-- specifically the art community-- is a sign of brutal arrogance in my opinion. He must be called out for it.

Note: A response from the AP-- Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations for The Associated Press, has released the following statement in response to Shepard Fairey and Anthony Falzone:

“The Associated Press is still in the process of reviewing Mr. Fairey's response to its Counterclaims, but it is very revealing that rather than present any evidence to justify his own obvious misappropriation of the AP's copyrighted work, he instead focuses on making collateral attacks on the AP, one of the oldest and largest news organizations in the world, regarding standard newsgathering activities. Even more disappointing is the fact that Mr. Fairey appears to have deliberately omitted from his filing information regarding the newsgathering context in which the various images were generated and in which they are used. We note that Mr. Fairey admits that he engaged in the hypocritical conduct discussed in the AP's Counterclaims, including using the work of others without obtaining a license while at the same time threatening others for using his own works.”

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Copyright Infringement: Richard Prince and Larry Gagosian respond to Patrick Cariou's lawsuit

Right: Collage by Richard Prince. Left: Photograph by Patrick Cariou

The issue of copyright infringement and “fair use” concerning visual art has been a hot topic as of late. For example, the mainstream media has devoted attention to the case involving Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press concerning Fairey’s infringement of an AP owned photograph taken by Mannie Garcia. However, there is another important copyright infringement case in the works that has received little press compared to the Fairey AP clash-- even though the outcome of the case is just as important to the art world and to copyright law as we know it. That situation involves photographer Patrick Cariou, Richard Prince, exhibit catalogue publisher Rizzoli, Gagosian Gallery, and art dealer Larry Gagosian.

For those who don’t know about the case-- Patrick Cariou, a photographer and author, filed a lawsuit against Richard Prince in December of last year after Richard Prince and Gagosian Gallery failed to acknowledge his cease-and-desist letter. Cariou’s lawsuit claims that photographs used by Prince for a series of collages were illegally borrowed from his book Yes Rasta-- which was registered in 2001.

Cariou claims that his photographs were illegally used in at least twenty Richard Prince collages exhibited by Gagosian Gallery in 2008. The collages, eight of which were sold, were priced between $1.5 million and $3 million each. Prince did not give the photographer credit or offer compensation-- and has since suggested that Cariou is a mediocre photographer.

As mentioned, Patrick Cariou did not stop with just Richard Prince-- the suit, which was filed in a U.S. federal court, also targets the Gagosian Gallery, the owner of the gallery Lawrence Gagosian, and the publisher of the exhibit catalogue, Rizzoli. Cariou’s suit claims that all parties were involved in the infringement. Thus, if the court rules in Cariou’s favor the precedent may play a role in the willingness of publishers, art galleries, and art dealers as far as working with artists who have a history of copyright infringement allegations.

In other words, if the court favors Patrick Cariou art dealers may think twice before exhibiting or promoting artists who have a history of copyright infringement allegations against them due to the potential financial burden that would occur if the infringer is exposed by a copyright owner. On that same note, publishers may refuse to create exhibit catalogues for artists who are known copyright infringers. Needless to say, a win for Cariou-- and for copyright-- could potentially change the ’landscape’ of the art world as well as the art market in general.

Richard Prince and Larry Gagosian have-- for the most part-- been silent about Patrick Cariou’s allegations-- until now. Gagosian’s lawyers have responded to Cariou’s lawsuit. The Gagosian legal team suggests that Prince’s use of Cariou’s photographs are protected under “fair use”. They suggest that the collages are acceptable due to the fact that Cariou’s photographs of Rastafarians in their native environments are “factually based”. Gagosian’s legal team goes on to suggest that the exhibition of the collages was not “commercially exploitative” and that the collages were created with a “genuine creative rationale” in good faith.

Richard Prince-- who is considered to be a pioneer of appropriation art and is often cited by copyright infringers-- has stated that Patrick Cariou’s photographs are not “strikingly original” or “distinctive in nature” and that his collages are “sanctioned under fair use”. Prince has also suggested that his use of Cariou’s photographs “poses no harm” to the value of Cariou’s work and that his use has instead increased the value of Cariou’s photographs. Prince also stated that his use of Cariou’s images reflect “established artistic practices”. However, Patrick Cariou and other supporters of copyright obviously have a different take on the situation.

Patrick Cariou has suggested that the unauthorized use of his photographs has harmed the integrity of his book Yes Rasta-- which involves photographs spanning a decade. Cariou has also suggested that Richard Prince would not have used 30 of his photographs if he were just a mediocre photograph. He feels that Richard Prince and Larry Gagosian are arrogant for suggesting that his photographs are not original or distinctive.

In the suit Patrick Cariou demands that the unsold artworks and exhibit catalogues be destroyed. Cariou also demands that the owners of the sold paintings be informed that it is illegal to display the work. This means that if the court sides with Cariou you will be hard pressed to find the Richard Prince collages involving Cariou’s work exhibited in a public collection-- or anywhere else for that matter. Needless to say, this case could be groundbreaking in that it will establish some order concerning how “fair use“ is interpreted-- either for or against it. The outcome of this case will drastically change the art world / art market.

While Shepard Fairey’s case against the Associated Press is a breeding ground for media buzz one could argue that the outcome of Patrick Cariou’s lawsuit against Richard Prince and Larry Gagosian is debatably more important for artists to observe-- especially artists who support copyright. It is true that if Shepard Fairey / Obey Giant Art Inc. wins against the AP it will set a legal precedent that will give companies-- like Obey Giant Art Inc.-- more pull when using copyrighted images for merchandise. However, the case involving Patrick Cariou and Richard Prince hits closer to home within the art world.

The case involving Cariou, Prince, and Gagosian will set a legal precedent that will effect the ability of artists to protect their copyright within the art world itself-- to protect their work from gallery represented artists and art dealers who-- debatably-- have more financial resources going into a case involving copyright infringement. Thus, emerging artists who support copyright should keep an eye on the outcome of Cariou’s lawsuit. I would go as far as to say that art dealers who support strong copyright should keep a watchful eye on the case as well.

Honestly, artists are not the only individuals harmed by weak copyright protection. Art collectors and art dealers can be harmed as well. Why invest in a work of art if it can be mass produced without restraint by any individual or company? The art market will be meaningless if we continue to stand back while copyright is chipped away to the point that artists are unable to uphold their copyright in court. Is my opinion extreme? Perhaps. However, there are enough examples of extreme interpretations of “fair use” to go around-- and people blindly accepting it-- to cause concern.

Links of Interest:

Fair Use in a Nutshell:A Roadmap to Copyright's Most Important Exception -- CopyLaw
www.copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html

Richard Prince and Gagosian fight back over copyright -- The Art Newspaper
www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=17147

Patrick Cariou Versus Richard Prince -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/patrick-cariou-versus-richard-prince.html

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement
www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/photojournalism/e3i4b1f65d43468689993c27258f9c4eaf0?imw=Y

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

My Response to Shepard Fairey concerning his ‘AP, Obama, and Referencing’ message on ObeyGiant.com. Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

As I’ve said before, securing creative freedom is one thing-- the desire to legitimize irresponsible and disrespectful appropriation for profit is another. Creative freedom is not under attack-- the rights of artists to secure their artwork and images of their artwork by copyright is. The ability for artists to protect the market for their art is under attack.

Those on the other side of the aisle, such as Shepard Fairey, continue to wave the banner of creative freedom-- I wish they would just come out and say what their battle charge is really about. They want to be able to profit off of the works of others while at the same time protecting their ‘new‘ images from “profiteers“, “mimics“, and “parasites“. Shepard Fairey wants the best of both worlds.

Shepard Fairey then states, “This case has raised many issues, including the use of references in art. Some of my earlier works have been attacked by some as “plagiarism”. I think reference is an important part of communication and it has been common practice in the art world.” Followed by, “When I flipped through the Christie’s auction house catalog from November 2008 I found many pieces that are based on reference or appropriation. Most are selling for over $100,000. Some are more clever than others, but these are all works that are at auction being taken very seriously. Take a look.”

Shepard Fairey failed to mention that many of the artist examples he listed appropriated widely known images instead of a photograph that was relatively unknown as he did with Mannie Garcia‘s AP copyrighted photograph of Obama. For example, the famous photograph of Marilyn Monroe was widely known, for the time, when Warhol used it. Warhol’s image quickly became iconic. Thus, under “fair use” one could parody Warhol’s Marilyn with little worry.

The same goes for other examples Fairey listed, such as ‘Jetsons’ by Kenny Scharf-- Scharf was a child in the 60s- it is safe to say that The Flintstones and The Jetsons were iconic long before Scharf used them in his art as an adult. The Marlboro advertisements that Richard Prince re-photographed were also widely known for their time. On a side note-- Fairey must not know that Richard Prince is having troubles of his own right now over copyright infringement.

Fairey then states, “If the AP wins their case, every Obama art (or any other politician) that was based on a photo reference that was not licensed would be rendered illegal.” Followed by, “Here are just a few that were an important part of the political discourse during this election cycle. I also think art that is critical of leaders that neither the subject or the photographer approve of need to be a legal form of expression. I think this Bush image is a perfect example. See Below.”

Shepard Fairey is full of contradictions. Today he is the champion of artistic freedom and free expression-- for many he is now the poster boy for “fair use“. However, last year he had a different stance on artistic freedom and free expression. In an October 2008 article for US News Shepard Fairey mention that he planned to “go after” individuals who “hijacked” his style in order to make “copycat images” of the candidates. He stated that he would try to make the “bootleggers” donate their profit to the ACLU. The fact remains that Shepard Fairey is not the champion of appropriation that he claims to be. After all, his Obama posters were widely known by that time. One could suggest that parodies of HOPE and PROGRESS would be perfectly acceptable under “fair use” due to the iconic status of the posters.

Need further insight concerning the contradictions of Shepard Fairey over “fair use”? In May of 2008-- as reported by the The Austin Chronicle -- Shepard Fairey was infuriated when emerging artist Baxter Orr created a parody of Fairey’s 20 year old image of Obey Giant-- an image that was widely known… iconic in its own right. Orr titled his parody ‘Protect’ and placed a SARS mask over the face of Andre. Soon after Orr received a cease-and-desist letter from Obey Giant Art Inc. The Austin Chronicle reported that Fairey called Orr a “profiteer”, “parasite”, and “mimic” for having appropriated Obey Giant.

Fairey, according to the Austin Chronicle, felt that Orr’s parody of Obey Giant threatened the secondary market for his art. In the Orr situation Fairey made it clear that he was protecting his trademark. Obey Giant is a trademark-- however, there is “fair use” under trademark. Fairey knows this-- he has parodied trademarks himself. He also said that the difference between he and Orr is that if contacted by a copyright owner he will stop using the protected image. Apparently that does not count in regards to the Associated Press case? The contradiction don’t stop there.

Earlier this month, March 2009, the Pittsburgh City Paper reported that Shepard Fairey had sent a cease-and-desist letter to Cafepress.com due to a store titled Steelerbaby. The store featured merchandise involving Steelerbaby , a doll designed by Larkin Werner. The official site for Steelerbaby features an image of the doll along with several catch phrases that visitors can click in order to have Steelerbaby say the phrase. One of the most popular Steelerbaby phrases happens to be “Obey Steelerbaby”. Thus, Werner created “Obey Steelerbaby” merchandise for his Cafepress shop. Cafepress removed all of the Obey Steelerbaby merchandise soon after receiving the cease-and-desist letter from Obey Giant Art Inc. However, Werner claims that he was not inspired by Shepard Fairey in the first place. Needless to say, Shepard Fairey felt that the merchandise was a threat to his trademark and the market for his art.

According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, Olivia Perches-- the representative of Shepard Fairey who sent the cease-and-desist letter to Cafepress-- has suggested that Obey Giant Art Inc. owns the use of ‘Obey’ and that artists can’t use the word ‘Obey’ in their artwork or designs. Chris Broders, a business partner involved with Fairey’s Obey clothing line, has suggested that the use of “Obey” becomes an issue when artists or other individuals profit from the “‘Obey’ mark”. He went on to suggest that Fairey’s representatives and business partners will do what they can in order to “protect" their "trademark".

Keep in mind that Werner only made just over $70 from Obey Steeler baby merchandise-- just barely enough to buy an OBEY hoody. Again, Werner claims that Shepard Fairey’s ‘OBEY’ was not on his mind. Even if it had been I would think that his use of Obey would be considered parody and that it would be acceptable under “fair use” due the iconic status of OBEY in general. Which begs the question-- does Shepard Fairey really support “fair use” and the whole of appropriation for that matter?

Again, this is just my take on Shepard Fairey’s message concerning the AP, Obama, and referencing. Read his message in its entirety in order to draw your own conclusions. I stand by my opinions . I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with being successful. I want artists to be successful. However, I also want emerging artists to be able to protect their work from the abuse of profiteers- like Shepard Fairey-- who take an extreme position regarding “fair use“ for their own gain.

I don’t care if it is a corporation, an artist, or an artist who owns a corporation-- they should not prey on the images of emerging artists. An artist can be successful and sustain a level of integrity. If the laws allow abuse perhaps they should be changed as far as visual art is concerned.

This is a 4 part rant:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

My Response to Shepard Fairey concerning his ‘AP, Obama, and Referencing’ message on ObeyGiant.com. Part 1

Shepard Fairey has addressed some of the allegations against him by posting a statement on his website. The message, titled ‘The AP, OBAMA & Referencing’, is an attempt to challenge the allegations against him concerning the AP. Fairey’s message is also an attempt to connect his use of the Obama photograph to art history. I warn you that this will be long-- I can't help it. Someone has to say what needs to be said and far too many people are worried about dents in popularity if they speak out. I don't care who I'm in favor with-- I know where I stand.

In the message Shepard Fairey declares that he is fighting against the Associated Press in order to “protect the rights of all artists”. Thus, his message is also an attempt to rally support from the visual art community. In other words, Shepard Fairey is attempting to say a lot with what little he is allowed to say due to the case. Unfortunately, it is what he does not say that should alarm the global visual art community. WAKE UP!

To be fair please read Shepard Fairey’s message in its entirety in order to draw your own conclusions. Then, by all means, read my opinion and see where you stand. Before I go further I must thank Qi Peng and Marc Schiller-- recent debates with these two individuals on Twitter spurred me to investigate Shepard Fairey further.

Done? Good. Throughout the message Shepard Fairey makes bold statements about ’artistic freedom’ and ’free expression’. He suggests that all artists will lose some of their rights if he loses against the Associated Press over the issue of copyright infringement. My take is that artists stand to lose more if Shepard Fairey wins his case against the Associated Press.

My opinion is that if the AP loses to Shepard Fairey it will mean that the door will be open further when Fairey decides to ‘reference’ artwork by an emerging artist or any artist that is not widely known. If he wins against the AP it will set a precedent that will greatly harm the ability for all artists to defend their copyright in court.

Fairey stated, “The Garcia photo is now more famous and valuable than it ever would have been prior to the creation of my poster. With this factor in mind, it is not surprising, that a gallery in NYC is now selling the Garcia photo for $1,200 each. As I understand it, Garcia himself did not even realize the poster was created referencing his photo until it was pointed out to him a full year after the poster came into existence. Mannie Garcia has stated in the press that he is an Obama supporter pleased with the poster result."

Shepard Fairey failed to mention the name of the gallery in his message. The gallery is Danziger Projects. The owner of the gallery, James Danziger, contacted Mannie Garcia on January 21st 2009. Danziger informed Garcia that his AP owned photograph had served as the basis for Shepard Fairy’s “HOPE” and “PROGRESS” posters. Fairey failed to mention that Mannie Garcia has stated that he does not like it when photographs are "ripped off"-- he has said that Fairey's Obama poster is a special case. Fairey also failed to mention that the “gallery in NYC” has represented some of his own artwork in the recent past.

I have to agree with Shepard on this one-- I doubt he was surprised at all that Danziger Projects is now selling prints of the photograph for $1,200. Just as I’m sure that Anthony Falzone was not surprised when he included the sales at Danziger Projects in Fairey’s preemptive lawsuit against the AP in order to ‘prove’ that the market for the photograph has increased due to Fairey’s use of the image. Take that for what it is worth…
Fairey states, “I did not create the Obama poster for financial gain. The poster was created to promote Obama for president, and the revenue from poster sales was re-invested in more posters, flyers, stickers, etc.., and donated to charity, including the Obama campaign.”

Unfortunately, Shepard Fairey failed to work under the umbrella of a charity group. In most cases if someone desires to raise money for a cause they will do so in direct partnership with a non-profit. The non-profit will handle the money instead of the individual-- in this case Shepard Fairey. My understanding is that Fairey handled the majority of the profit directly and then allocated it as he wished. Thus, Fairey did profit.

Think of it this way-- if you donate your entire paycheck to a cause does that mean you did not profit from your employer? No. You made profit-- you earned your paycheck-- you just decided to do a great deed with that profit. My point being that the money Shepard Fairey earned from his Obama prints and Obama merchandise is profit no matter how he attempts to slice it.

Fairey states, “A free download of the Obama image was available on my website, which should provide further evidence of the desire to disseminate the image, not to benefit financially.”

Unfortunately, Shepard Fairey failed to mention that he often has free downloads available on his site-- he also makes sure to have copyright information listed on every page of his site. Including the page where the downloads are offered. He also fails to mention some of the veiled legal threats he made in 2008 concerning artists who made parodies of his Obama posters. In fact, in one article he suggested that after the campaign he would go after ‘bootleggers’ and other who profited off of the image or variations of the image.

Obviously Shepard Fairey was interested in profit and in silencing those who referenced his poster for their own form of social commentary. One could say that though he may not have put any of the profit from the image in his own pocket he most certainly did want to secure his investment in the image.

This is a 4 part rant:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog