Fairey claims he did not remix the image for profit. Nor did he use the entire image, as I did here with my "Mirror, mirror, on the wall" image. The fact that his creation did earn a profit, and ultimately led to monetary gain, is not a clear indicator he violated "fair use". He did not design it with the intention of marketing it for profit, but since it did become a marketable image that brought profit to his companies, I think there should have, at the very least, been some sort of credit given to the photographer and the Associated Press for the original image.
After reading all of the suggested articles, I don't recall there being any mention of a Creative Commons license on the photo, nor do I recall there being any mention of the orginal photograph being connecteed to any kind of phrase or wording that stated it could not be used. Had he mentioned the photographer and/or AP, then I think Creative Commons would apply.
I viewed the plagiarism videos (YouTube, Paul Robeson) but I'm not sure that applies here. It's difficult deciding which laws apply...there are SO many!
Street art can be very inspiring. I grew up in a big city and have seen some really beautiful "graffiti". It always made me wonder if any of the people who created it ever did anything artful with their lives. This form of expression is more important that people realize, I think, and they deserve credit for their work just like any other artist. Someone should work with these people and help them copyright their works for added protection.
Did you know that every street artist signs his work? That's how police figure out who did what "graffiti". I learned this from watching the news years ago, so to cite the exact newscast at this point in time is not possible. Here is a link to a really cool site that plays host to street artists. While most of it appears to be orginal art, I think you will recognize some of the artwork as pure plagiarism as it is described in the YouTube videos we watched this week. It is unknown to me if any of these artists got permission to use some of the images they have painted. I have never seen a citation on any of these types of images or phrases, so I hightly doubt it. It's a great site to peruse, nonetheless, so enjoy!
I agree with you that their are so many laws to do with this matter that even if I was a practicing copyright lawyer I am not certain I would know what the correct answer is here. I do think you are correct that if Fairey had mentioned that this photo was an altered photo of an Associated Press original that creative commons would have applied in this situation because the original was so altered and he did not use the entire original photo but I only speculate because copyright law is not my forte.
ReplyDelete