Tuesday, February 17, 2009

fair use?

what do you guys think about fair use? shepard fairy is currently in some possible legal trouble over the use of an associated press photo that was the base for his obama posters. on the flip side, a friend of mine is seeking legal advice over the possible use of an image, by another well known artist, that he took.  ill let you be the judge.

below is a new design from rebel 8 by mike giant.

this next photo was taken by my friend jason reed.
these are the two images superimposed onto one another.

similar?  you can even see este in the background if you look real hard.

originally seen on no brakes


10 comments:

Destructo said...

It's hard to say in this case because usually if the artwork is altered enough from the original, then the use is "fair." But Rebel 8 is making a profit without giving any recognition to the source, so i guess that's where it gets complicated.

I think if you post any photos online without putting some kind of protection on them, you are essentially giving up your rights to them.

articlescollective said...

wow, im glad you posted this because i was just thinking about posting a similar thing. although my stance is sideways and unfair i would like to state the following.

yes, dorothy is right, if you are posting your shit on the internet without a watermark you are asking people to steal that shit. people love just googling shit and then using it as their own. unfair, but SUPER common. i see that shit every day at the shop.

shepard fairy: dude straight took an image off AP and essentially put the photoshop 3 color cutout filter on it. BOGUS. the fact that his whole career is based off of biting barbara kruger's career and the movie 'they live' doesnt help as far as precedence goes.

giant: dudes ill and drew that shit by hand no doubt, which technically makes it re-appropriated and therefore legal. also, giants the shit, but he might should have at least emailed a motherfucker.

if i were the no brakes dudes id be like "yo, giant... you used my photo... hows about some free shit?"

if he responded with anything but a "hell yes" he goes in the 'tool' category forever. see: 'shepard fairy' above

màki said...

the photo is actually from a dude named jason. not associated with no brakes really but he took this picture at an event they co-sponsored. he is a photographer and makes at least part of his living as such. my understanding is that the image is copywrited and was published in a print/online magazine. agreed about the watermark.

Richardoom said...

Judge Judy says.... NOT guilty.

kegbenk said...

the picture is better. whatever homeboy did to it he just made it not as good, for which he should get the credit.

King of Daves said...

I think MIke Giant wins because at least when he redrew John "Everybody's favorite" Woodruff he got rid of those silly looking boxer-briefs and add skeleton bones and badass blue lightning.

the xarlacc said...

'fair' is a myth. one persons 'fair use/re-appropriation' is obviously someone elses 'biting/theft.' its the same as how we have different ideas of 'right/wrong, good/bad.' it is all in the context, already stated by these eloquent bloggers before me. where do you draw the line ? ex, XARLAKK on myspace, those are my joints (though i emulated or 'bit' some of the content), but by participating in the site , they are technically Myspace's joints. so its a lose, lose.i cannot do shit except delete my account, and then they still got my shit. but if someone locally was straight up jacking my pictures and showing them elsewhere, i would want to smash that persons head wide open.but would i? and then what? one persons 'poser' is another persons 'creativity,' who gets to be the judge ? i believe there are no rules to it. violations without a doubt occur though, and if you want to try and get the thief to to pay you, you should, thats your call. and if enough people think that yes, they should pay, then yo, you gotta pay that shit cause you got busted. because mass produced art by definition, is for other people to buy, it is a commodity (a capitalist device, not creative device necessarily) and the people who buy it get do be the ones who decide after a 'seller' blows the whistle.it is their money. sidenote, we are all recycling ideas that have happened before us. and through capitalism, we are all exploited. so mix that up and what? this is what i believe to be the underlying theme of 'fair use.'

andepie said...

I agree with the general consensus and now I will take time to write long post about how I agree. I also think its getting harder and harder with the internet and its making thing more complex. I think if you alter the image even just a little bit your cool. But art nowadays is making things ass backwards. Like this one dude yanked these three movie posters and was selling them at the art papers auction. Because it was a Superman, Eregon, Xmen poster --- back when the formula was put a large intial for the title and little date at the bottom. so essentially it spelled S.E.X. --- I mean and thats cool! But where the fuck does that land on fare use. The dude framed the posters and redistributed them in gallery setting there by declaring them art. I think its alright. Context is everything nowdays.

Basically it sucks because, it comes down to money right? Is that where it gets fuzzy -- should we share the profits? And in a perfect world we want it to be about creativity and sharing! I say use use use and abuse, its all fair it won't matter when were all gone anyways....one day its gonna bite me in the ass though...I can feel it creeping up.

articlescollective said...

hahaha 'everyones favorite'. all and all, i think i agree with dave when i say that giant did him a favor.

30cent said...

haha john is about to eat shit