Interview Magazine Copyright Infringement Controversy on Twitter and Facebook

Early this morning (May 12th, 2009) I decided to look at who some of my Twitter followers follow. While exploring Twitter I came upon the profile for Interview Magazine ( InterviewMag ). The icon image on the profile caught my eye-- it was an image of Andy Warhol that I recognized. In fact, I knew the moment I observed the icon that it was an issue of copyright infringement. I recognized the icon image and had a gut feeling that Interview Magazine-- and more importantly, Brant Publications, Inc.-- did not have rights to the image. The artist behind the image did not receive credit from Interview Magazine.

Interview Magazine used Judy Rey Wasserman's Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol) without permission.

I knew the moment I observed the Interview Magazine Twitter icon that the image was from an ink on paper portrait of Andy Warhol by Judy Rey Wasserman. I quickly contacted Wasserman ( judyrey )on Twitter in order to find out if she was aware of how the image was being used. Wasserman replied to me two hours later and confirmed that Interview Magazine had not asked permission to use her work, titled Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol), as an icon for their ‘official’ Twitter account. I stressed to Wasserman that Interview Magazine’s action was a perfect example of copyright infringement.

Interview Magazine Copyright Infringement Controversy on Twitter and Facebook Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol) Essence series 2007, Ink on paper, 12 x 9 inches by Judy Rey Wasserman -- which can be found at www.ungravenimage.com/essence.php and www.ungravenimage.com/blog. Check it out, Interview Magazine obviously did-- and have used the image in online branding / promotional efforts without giving Wasserman credit.

Oddly enough, Judy Rey Wasserman was thrilled that Interview Magazine had used her image of Andy Warhol as the icon for their Twitter profile-- even though they had done so without permission and without giving her credit as the artist behind the image. I understood why Wasserman was excited. After all, Interview Magazine was co-founded by Andy Warhol and Wasserman happens to be an admirer of Warhol’s work.

Wasserman was excited regardless of the fact that Interview Magazine had failed to ask permission or credit her. However, I still viewed it as an issue that trampled on the rights of a fellow artist. Wasserman did not agree with my opinion on the matter-- she stated that she felt like she had been “discovered”. My point-- if it happened to her it could happen to any artist. Thus, I decided to press on.

It was soon discovered that Interview Magazine had also used Judy Rey Wasserman’s Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol) as the icon for their InterviewNews Twitter account. Further still-- the same image by Wasserman was used on Interview Magazine’s official Facebook fan page-- without permission or credit-- as a way to promote the two Twitter accounts. Obviously the person(s) behind the accounts felt that Wasserman’s image was vital to their social networking branding efforts. I had to make sure that all three accounts were officially endorsed by Interview Magazine.

Detail from Interview Magazine's official Facebook fan page.

As it turns out, all three accounts-- the two Twitter accounts and Facebook account-- are considered ‘official’ by Interview Magazine. In other words, they are not profiles ran by fans of the publication. Someone hired by Interview Magazine was behind the choice of using Judy Rey Wasserman’s artwork 3 times without permission or credit. In fact, Interview Magazine promotes the Facebook page on the art publications official website-- and the two Twitter accounts on the Interview Magazine Facebook page.


I contacted Interview Magazine by email in order to find out if representatives were aware that an artists work was being used in their online branding efforts without permission or credit. I stressed that I felt the action of Interview Magazine in this situation was very unethical. As I pointed out to Wasserman, would Interview Magazine allow an artist to brand his or her business with one of their magazine covers without permission-- no. Needless to say, I have yet to receive a reply from the representatives of Interview Magazine.

I wanted to give Interview Magazine and Brant Publications, Inc. the benefit of the doubt by giving them time to take action. Several hours after I contacted Interview Magazine by email action was taken-- the Twitter icons involving Judy Rey Wasserman’s artwork had been replaced by a photograph of Andy Warhol.

Obviously someone from Interview Magazine was aware of my criticism and had switched the images-- what can only be perceived as an admission of guilt. The images were removed-- however, as of this time Wasserman has yet to receive a public apology from Interview Magazine. Was Wasserman discovered by Interview Magazine? No-- her rights have been swept under the rug.

Several hours after I contacted Interview Magazine the Twitter icons featuring Judy Rey Wasserman's Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol) were replaced by a photograph of Andy Warhol. Representatives of Interview Magazine have yet to respond to the infringement.

For those who don’t know, Brant Publications, Inc. is owned by billionaire art collector Peter Brant. Brant publishes Interview Magazine and Art in America-- one of the highest selling art magazines in the world. In my opinion, the rights of artists have really went to pot when established art magazines use images of artwork for their online promotional and branding efforts without giving credit where credit is due.

The actions of Interview Magazine (or at least the employee who maintains the Twitter and Facebook accounts) begs the question-- is this business as usual for the magazine that was co-founded by an artist who stated “good business is the best art”. In my opinion Interview Magazine has displayed very unethical behavior in handling this issue-- bad business involving an artists work and a violation of her rights.

I realize that many will say 'It is just an icon'. It was more than that-- it was a clear choice in support of the magazines online branding and promotional efforts. It was a business choice that placed the rights of an artist on the backburner. That said, I suppose it is possible that the copyright infringement controversy surrounding Interview Magazine may only last 15 minutes.

Links of Interest:

Judy Rey Wasserman’s website
www.ungravenimage.com

Interview Magazine
www.interviewmagazine.com

Take care, Stay true,

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

Picasso: The value of a name?

Apparently there has been a lengthy battle over Picasso’s name in the UK. It started when Manders Paints, owned by Dougie Urquhart, decided to introduce a line of paints called Picasso Tint to Taste. The estate of Pablo Picasso quickly took legal action in order to prevent Manders Paint from using the family name on their products. The verdict is in-- Picasso lost.

The case has been described as a landmark ruling due to the fact that only Dougie Urquhart’s company, Manders Paints, can use the name Picasso as a brand name for UK based painting products. Needless to say, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has sided with Manders Paints on the issue. However, the Picasso estate has appealed in the past-- so it is likely that they will continue to fight for their namesake.

The Picasso estate argued that the use of the name ‘Picasso’ without their consent amounted to exploitation by Dougie Urquhart and his company. In other words, they feel that the only reason Urquhart desires to use the name is due to the commercial value it has for his specific market-- products for painters. That said, Urquhart’s legal team pointed out that names of other famous painters, such as Renoir and Matisse, have been registered as trademarks with or without the consent of those respected families.

The Picasso estate is known for adamantly defending Pablo Picasso’s name and art. In fact, the movie Surviving Picasso (1996 Merchant Ivory Productions) experienced the wrath of the Picasso family during production. The producers were unable to obtain permission to feature replicas of Picasso’s art on the set. From what I’ve read the only painting in Surviving Picasso that is based on an authentic Picasso painting is the scene where Picasso, played by Anthony Hopkins, creates a section of Guernica-- though the scene is filmed in a way as to make the image only slightly visible.

This case involving Manders Paints and the Picasso estate begs the question-- what is the value of a name? I suspect that eventually we will see other art products named after artists. Perhaps in the future one will be able to purchase Hirst Black, Fairey Red, or Koons Blue. That said, is the last name of the artist as important as the visual legacy he or she leaves behind? Does commercial use of an artists name without his or her consent-- or estate consent-- harm the market for his or her art? What is the value of a name? Thoughts?

Link of Interest:

UK paint firm wins Picasso battle

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8015364.stm

Manders Paints

www.manderspaints.co.uk

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

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 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


Copyright is very important concerning the market and technology of today. People talk about how “fair use” needs to be extended due to the technology of today-- they feel that an extreme interpretation of “fair use“ is needed to secure creative freedoms. They often forget to mention the ease in which an individual can make reproductions from images found online today and the fact that many of the artists advocating for extended “fair use“, such as Shepard Fairey, profit from the random images they find online.

They are waving the banner of creative freedom when in reality the focus is on profit and profit alone-- their profit. Profit with total disregard for the profit and market of their peers. That is why Shepard Fairey is a target for my criticism-- and why he will continue to receive criticism until he takes responsibility. Unfortunately, he tends to use his charity work as a shield or resorts to having his friends rattle sabers when faced with criticism.

The fact remains that a skilled artist can use computer programs to alter an image they found online in order to suggest that it is his or her own-- or he or she can simply print off copies of the image in order to make changes to it. That is not to suggest that artists using these programs are not artists or that certain aspects of computer based art is of no value. It all comes down to responsibility and respect for other artists.

Shepard Fairey, to me, represents artists who display neither. Those who support his extreme view of “fair use” either don’t care about how hard it is for artists to establish a market for their work or they embrace his practice within their own methods of artistic creation involving works for profit.

My issue with extended views of “fair use” is that an emerging artist can spend months or years working on an oil painting or sculpture only to end up with another artists using an image of that painting or sculpture for a project that may have only taken days to create. In a sense, you could say that the artists working in traditional mediums need to have their work protected from the technology of today. Telling those artists not to upload images online is not the answer.

All artists deserve to gain exposure online knowing that their work is protected by strong copyright. There is room for “fair use” as long as it is limited and does not destroy or burden the business of emerging artists before they have a chance to rise on their own. Unfortunately, copyright is constantly under attack.

As mentioned earlier, more artists than ever are making a living or part of their living from selling their art. These artists need to know that their images are protected. Their collectors need to know that their investment is secure. In other words, artists must be able to defend the exclusive rights to their art-- to their business and legacy. If Shepard Fairey wins against the AP it will be yet another blow to artists who desire to embrace the market aspect of art. Throw the romantic image of 'the artist' aside! The idea that art should not involve business is a fantasy when one consider the art market of today-- Fairey knows this. So do I.

That is why so many art organizations and individuals have stood against orphan works legislation in recent years due to the fact that if passed the legislation would have greatly reduced the ability of living artists to protect and defend their art in court. Those same people should stand against artists like Shepard Fairey who fly false banners of ‘artistic freedom’ and ‘free expression’ during legal cases involving copyright infringement.

After all, the artists who cry ’artistic freedom’ and ’free expression’ when exposed for copyright infringement often do it in order to protect their profit rather than the way in which they work. Look at Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit against the AP-- it makes it clear that he desires to protect the profit made from the image as well as future profit. The issue is not necessarily about the AP-- the fact remains that Fairey could have done this to a fellow artist as he has done in the past.

Again, if the AP loses to Shepard Fairey it will mean that the door will be open further when he decides to ‘reference’ artwork by an emerging artist. 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. I can't stress this enough!

I realize that copyright issues can quickly become a debate between freedom of speech/expression and control. However, suggesting that supporters of strong copyright are attacking creative freedom is not exactly fair considering that the issue of copyright infringement does not become an issue until price tags are involved.

If an artist wants to explore the work of another artist directly, fine-- it becomes an issue when the artist attaches a price to the ‘new’ image or produces prints of the ‘new’ image for profit. We would not be facing this debate if it were not for the fact that some individuals-- Shepard Fairey for example-- think that it is acceptable to profit off of the hard work of others. His case against the AP is not about creative freedom or any of the other similar rhetoric spewing from his lips-- it is about his desire to profit off of others without consequence.

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 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“. They want the best of both worlds. Point that out and those artists will often flee from a debate on this issue.

Think of it this way-- many of the artists who support an extended view of “fair use”, such as Shepard Fairey and Joy Garnett, are the same artists who create art utilizing the work of others for profit. They are represented by galleries-- they know the business side of art. So are they really champions of freedom and free-culture? Or are they just protecting their own business by supporting standards that would make it harder for other business-minded artists to protect their images from their use? If it is not about profit you would think they would be more than willing to 'spread the wealth' with the artists and photographers they 'reference'.

Don’t get me wrong, “fair use” is important-- however it should not be extended to the point that a widely known artist can base his or her career working directly from artwork by relatively unknown artists-- and other individuals-- for profit. This is why I have concerns about Shepard Fairey and what he represents. The contradictions and hypocrisy is tiresome. I’m not attacking creative freedom with my opinion-- I’m standing up for what the majority of artists have fought long and hard for. Don’t confuse creative freedom with the need for some artists to profit off of other artists.

To put it bluntly, it is going to be horrible if artists allow their rights to be stamped out in the name of creative freedom when the artists leading this charge, such as Shepard Fairey, are thinking more about their bank accounts than real creative freedom. Since when did creative freedom involve the need to profit from others? Are we defining creative freedom by dollar signs now? Let us not confuse the two! We should examine what Shepard Fairey is really saying when he uses these powerful words-- “creative”, “freedom”, and "expression".

In my opinion, he is seeking the freedom to be creative with the work of other living or recently deceased artists-- and others-- in order to profit without consequences. He desires the freedom to go against their intentions and legacy while expecting others to ‘obey’ his intentions and legacy. He is no different than the people who strongly supported aspects of the recent orphan works legislation which would have harmed the ability of living artists to protect their art. It is as simple as that. If we define ‘artistic freedom’ and ’free expression’ with a dollar sign the arts are truly doomed.

I must stress this-- If Shepard Fairey/ Obey Giant Art Inc. wins against the AP it will set a precedent that will make it easier for individuals and corporations to abuse the copyright of visual artists and other creative professionals. Make a stand-- disobey Shepard Fairey. Let people know that not everyone in the global art community supports Shepard Fairey's extreme interpretation of "fair use" for profit. Think of the past allegations that have shadowed his career-- think about what a victory against copyright could mean for your career. Support the exclusive rights that the majority of artists have fought hard for.

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

Shepard Fairey decides that Steelerbaby does not need to Obey his legal team

Larkin Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' next to a poster by Shepard Fairey.

UPDATE: It appears that Shepard Fairey has dropped his cease-and-desist order against Cafepress and Larkin Werner's Steelerbaby store. My sources tell me it was dropped on March 10th-- days after my post about the issue.

Disobey Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/03/disobey-shepard-fairey.html

There are three rumors floating around as to why Shepard Fairey dropped his cease-and-desist order-- all of which suggest that he did it in order to save face:

1.) Shepard Fairey did not want the negative press going into his case against the Associated Press-- kind of hard to be a champion of "fair use" when you oppose it, true? After all, Fairey sent the cease-and-desist letter a week or so before his last interview on NPR. During that interview he suggested that he is going against the AP in order to secure the rights of all artists who work under "fair use". Perhaps he is finally realizing that part of that involves people being able to parody his widely known posters and trademark? Or maybe he just took a big gun away from the Associated Press countersuit?

2.) Lawrence Lessig, Anthony Falzone, and the Fair Use Project did not want negative press concerning contradictions of "fair use" in regards to their client-- Shepard Fairey. After all, the Fair Use Project supports an extended interpretation of "fair use" in general. It would not look good if their client flip-flops on his opinion of "fair use". Shepard Fairey often appears to have a selective interpretation of "fair use"-- as in it is OK for him to parody-- or comment on visually-- the work of others while at the same time sending legal threats when emerging artists parody his world renowned images. Due to this it has been suggested that Shepard Fairey is only interested in "Fairey use".

3.) Shepard Fairey did not want negative press-- period. It seems the press honeymoon is over. Recently Shepard Fairey has been ripped apart by the press-- a far cry from the constant praise he received for months due to his work for the Obama campaign. Shepard Fairey of all people should understand the double-edged sword of mass media. It can’t be butterflies and awards all the time.

Needless to say, Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' items have returned to Cafepress, www.cafepress.com/steelerbaby.

At some point the artist who says "question everything" must answer some difficult questions from fans, critics, and collectors concerning his ethics, the validity of his art, and the contradictions that have shadowed his career-- questions that can't be answered by a resume of good deeds. The sidestepping and using charity as a shield during interviews must stop if he is to be taken serious. To put it bluntly, post after post from SuperTouch and other Fairey friends can't hide the fact that people are demanding answers.

What are your thoughts concerning this situation? Do you think Shepard Fairey honestly supports “fair use”? Or do you feel that he is only interested in --as the Phantom Street Artist calls it-- “Fairey use”? Did the Fair Use Project make a mistake in representing Shepard Fairey? What is your opinion of Shepard Fairey in general? What are your thoughts?

Links of Interest:

Steelerbaby Blues by Chris Young -- Pittsburgh City Paper

www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/birds-of-feather-flock-together-damien.html

Integrity Lost: Lawrence Lessig helps Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/integrity-lost-lawrence-lessig-helps.html

The Phantom Street Artist speaks out against Shepard Fairey in Citizen LA by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/03/phantom-street-artist-speaks-out.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog