Recently in class we looked at portraits and their evolution from a status symbol to being a tool for broadening our own perception of accepted societal norms. I would like to continue this exploration of portraits by taking a look at the above portrait. This is has become an iconic image that is associated with the recent election of our new president, Barrack Obama. However, this image is clouded with controversy. The creator of this poster, contemporary artist, Shepard Fairey, has had a lawsuit filed against him claiming that this was not his image and that there is copyright infringement. He in turn is counter suing saying that images that appear in the public domain are available and free to be used for other purposes. This is a huge lawsuit in the art world and one of much debate.
Click on the link below and watch Stephen Colbert debate this issue. After watching the link and aquainting yourself with the issue(google more), respond in the comment section of this post.
Do you think this is an original piece of art?
Who has the rights to this image?
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has beeen significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
Think about all the angles at play here and respond...
I think that is an original piece art according to the certain things we learned in class. I think the person that took the photo has rights to his photo. The person who altered the picture has rights to his alternative version of it. I just think this according to my opinion and somewhat of what we learned in class. I think if I were the photographer I would be proud that something I created is a really good piece of art and be happy for the person who created the art piece.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Shepard Fairey is counter suing for. I believe that if there is a picture/poster that is made public in more than one place that there can be no copyright. Fairey took a simple picture of Obama and made it his own piece, which I think is a great piece of art. I think that the right to this image goes both ways. Fairey has his right to the image he created off the original copy of the poster and the original photographer has the right to the original photo. If I were the photographer that originally took the photo I would not care about what Fairey did because now they are two completely different pieces. I think what Fairey did was very creative and not wrong in any way, but some obviously think different.
ReplyDeleteI 100 percent agree with Shepard Fairey for counter suing. I have seen many versions of this photo in different colors and shades and they are made by different people. I also agree with Mike Gibbons on how the rights go two different ways because Fairey altered the piece of artwork. If I was the photographer, I would not care about what Fairey did because it ads another twist on the piece of art that others may not have thought of. It also offers another way to interpret it because yes its the same picture but yet it is not.
ReplyDeleteI have several different views on this. First, I think that this is an original piece of art because Fairey significantly changed the photo by changing the color and he took out the background. People take pieces of are and change then slightly and call it original all the time. However, the photo was taken for the Associated Press and if they did copyright the photo then they would own the rights to the photo. Although the issue here is Fairey did not use the photo but his own original piece of art. Strictly on a legal level if I was a judge in this case I would probably side with the Associated Press, if they did copyright the photograph, but only if they had a copyright on it. It is easy to see that he used the photography in his work. However, I do not think that a company such as the Associated Press should be suing over something like this because I'm sure it boils down to money. The Associated Press does not like the idea of Fairey making money of off their photograph. If the AP did not copyright the photo, if I was the judge, then I would side with Fairey. If I was the photographer then I would have claimed the rights to my photo but I think that the photographer should have done that in the first place if he cared about other people reproducing it; however, it does not seem like he cares much about it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this piece is an original work of art. The actual photo taken originally was not used at all. Shepard Fairey outlined and drew it, therefore the piece is his and he should have the rights to this image. Unless the actual
ReplyDeletephoto was used, which is was not, then it would not be his. If I was the judge I would side with the fact that the photo was not used so Shepard Fairey's work is original.
I agree with Danielle. I also believe that this is an original piece of art. The artist changed the meaning of the photo to begin with. Artists do that all the time and never receive this sort of media attention.
ReplyDeleteI feelthis iconic images shows so much more than a man in a suit. It shows how confident he is for what he believes in which in this case is hope. this photo is very recognizable because of the changes that were made to create a new photograph.
ReplyDeleteI agree with shepard fairy. Its just a work of art!
ReplyDeleteI do think this is an original work of art. Fairey only used the face profile of Obama as a model and did not use the actual photo itself as a reproduction. The AP has the rights to its photo, and Fairey has the rights to his poster. To me they are completely separate entities. If I were the photographer I would think it was sufficiently changed to be new.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shepard Fairy. He used the picture as a model and drew it himself, he did not use the photo itself. Fairy used a creativity and added more meaning to the photo that he saw into his poster. The meaning of the photo was changed , therefore the AP shouldn't be suing nor win the case against Fairy. I watched another clip on the website with an interview with Fairy and he said that he isn't even really making money off the poster, he said that the poster belongs to everybody. If I was the photographer of the photo, I would agree that the photo was sufficinelty changed and I would not sue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shepard Fairy, he has taken an older piece of art and made it into his own. Artists have been redo and getting ideas from past works for years. I think he put his own style on the photograph and really changed it from just a man in a suit.
ReplyDeleteShepard Fairy has created an original piece here. The photographer has created an orginal piece as well. The difference is in how they created the "art". One was done in paint etc. and the other was a photgrapher. Two totally different mediums. The photograph inspired Fairy to create this piece of art, so if anything an artist uses for inspiration could be at question here. It is deff. a changed piece of art from the original. There is no wrong here. He used a public piece of inspiration and changed it to suit his work of art.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the artist, Fairey, most artwork is inspired by something. In his case he was inspired by the photograph that AP company took. Though the Hope poster looks very similar to the photograph the poster is not a photograph and is an abstract nad perhaps digitally painted piece of artwork which makes it different from the original photograph. If I were to be the judge on this case I would tell the AP company to get over it and to remember what the whole campaign was about which was change and not continuing to be a "Hater".
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that this is an original piece of artwork. While Fairey did use the photo and just changed the colors the feel of the picture had changed drastically. Like Ross said the photographer isn't calling his photo art and the photo could be used publicly. Both Fairey and the photographer have rights to the photo, but they both should have rights to their interpretations of the image. I would go on the side of Fairey just because he is the real creator of the poster if the photographer's plain photo was the one making the profit he wouldn't care about Fairey's art. If i was the photographer I would be upset that I didnt think of that poster, but all in all the poster is a drastically changed and would not be my idea anymore. Maybe some median should be made between the two for profit sharing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the artist on this. It was the AP/the photographers photo, but they put it out in the public by using it on the magazine and made it available to everyone. Shepard Fairey only outlined the image and made it his own. If they intend to sue him for taking this image and making it into a work of art, then they would also have to sue every man, woman, and child who ever took a picture they put in their magazine and used for something else. The whole lawsuit comes down to money, and AP is just worried Fairey will make more money off of this picture than they did.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this picture by Shepard Fairey is an origin piece of art. Each person may perceive art differently; if the piece is attractive or if it is meaningful depends on the individual. The artist who created a similar piece of art as the Obama poster, but with adding his own artistic creativity and elements, has the right to do so. The art industry should be about passion and skill, not all about money and profits. If an artist gets his or her inspiration with influence from another piece of art, they should be able to do so and express their ideas freely and without consequences.
ReplyDeleteIf i was the judge assigned to this case or the photographer for the original photo I would dismiss it and declare Shepard Fairey as not guilty and give his permission to share his piece with the public. It is not as if Fairey completely copied this image. He altered it a lot and put his own creativity into it. He completely changed the colors of the image and only used the silhouette of obama and added his own background.
I absolutely believe this is an original piece of art. Using the example of the Mona Lisa, one could look toward Marcel Duchamp's piece L.H.O.O.Q. in which he took a postcard of the Mona Lisa and simply drew on a mustache and a goatee. If this work is considered original, than why wouldn't this Obama poster be original as well?
ReplyDeleteI think the rights of this image are not clearly defined. The image was given by the photographer to AP and, in turn, AP published the image making it fair game for others to look at and possibly change, like Shepard Fairey did.
If I were to one judging this case I would say Fairey is not guilty. Again, if one was to look at the example I used of the Mona Lisa, they would see that this is somewhat of the same issue.
And finally, if I were the photographer who originally took this photo I wouldn't be suing for the complete rights to it. Fairey definitely changed the photo significantly, causing the purpose and context of the photo to change, creating a new piece of artwork.
According to what we learned at the beginning of this class about artwork I definitely think this piece is original because it has been altered and made into a completely different image.
ReplyDeleteI think photographer has the rights to his original image and Shepard Fairy has the rights to this new revised piece of art.
If I were the judge on this case I would declare Shepard Fairy not guilty because the only thing he really used was the outline of Obama. The colors are original of the artist.
If I were the photographer that originally took this photo I would agree that although it is my original photograph it has been altered so much that it is a completely different piece of artwork.
I think Shepard Fairy should have the rights to this image. This is his art work that he has created and made his own. He added colors and text and it became something iconic
ReplyDeletei think this is an original piece because its not like its exactly like the other picture. Shepard Fairy changed it and made it his own, just like we did in our art projects. the color and the text makes it a completely different photo. i would say the only thing the other picture did was influence Shepard Fairy's work
ReplyDeleteI think that it is their right to change the photo. It is their right to use the photo alsom. It was just a regular picture at first and than it was taken to a new level. The orginal photo was never famous or used but now the new and improved is being used everywhere. In the end i think it is just a piece of art.
ReplyDeleteI think the rights should be to Shepard Fairy. He created the poster which is now seen everywhere. I would give the rights to Shepard Fairy with small credit to the photographer. If i was the photographer I wouldn't want all rights to the image, but i would like some credit for the photo. It has been changed but i wouldn't say significantly.
ReplyDeleteAccording to our recent discussions in class I would consider this an original piece of art. I believe that they ought to have the rights to change the photo however they choose. If I were the judge, I would make the point that this is America and that we all have our own rights to be individuals, especially when it comes to artwork. Finally, if I were the artist I would not be angry at all because if someone were to change the image then it is no longer the same image and no longer the same message I was originally trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteDue to our recent discussions we have had in class I would definitely consider this piece of art as original. I believe that Shepard Fairey should in fact have the rights to this image. It is his art work that he himself created and managed to make it his own. He was the one responsible for adding the color and text to it and it is now an iconic piece in today's society. Personally if I were the judge on the case I would say that Fairey is not guilty because the only thing that he really used was the outline of Obama. The colors and everything else are original of Fairey. If I were the photographer I would not be upset or care sure the photograph was mine but the piece has been changed so significantly that it is nothing like the original therefore it is original and unique in its own way.
ReplyDeleteI think that the photo was an original piece of art. Just like what we did in class, when we took an original work changed it slightly and made it a new work or art. If I was the photographer who took this photo I would not want all the rights to the image because another person is not taking credit for the photo you took, but changing it significantly so its no longer the same image
ReplyDeleteShepard took an image of photography and changed it into an iconic symbol for the president.Anyone has the right to change an image because the photographer has a different intention. Obama is a public figure and does not have the rights of his own picture so who cares what photography was changed...unless the motive is money based!!!!The best part on the Colbert Report was when Ed Colbert said he supports and defends whomever is paying him! Money talks and he even used the social stigma, "I'm a lawyer, so i am driven by money". (Idiot)
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is an original piece of art because Fairey made it his own, the only thing that he took was the outline of Obama. So it is only fair that he should have the rights to the image.
ReplyDeleteI think that Fairey has done nothing wrong here by editing this photo and making it his own. I believe, on the contrary to what the interview said, what Fairey has done here is not like taking a color film and making it black and white. Fairey had made this unique by creating a pop art style piece that is completely detached from the original. I don't know much about art history, but did Warhol get in trouble for taking photographs of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's product and making the works his own? In all, I think Fairey changed it enough and it's a unique, separate work of art now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the person who took the photograph has the right to that image, but the altered version of his is not his image, it is the artist image because he changed things in it. I believe though that public photographs and stuff that is for the public, people should be able to use for what they want.
ReplyDeleteThis is an edited version of the original, meaning it's not the first time this picture has been seen. The oringial artist deserves the rights to this photo. Though it was a public photo, the changes that have been made would not even be possible if it weren't for the first artist that produced this.
ReplyDeleteI think the origional photographer should have the rights to the photo. There really is not much difference between the origional and the altered version except the color changes that were made.
ReplyDeleteEven though this picture is an original created by the photographer, I think Fairey is correct in saying that he has rights to it. If Fairey took this picture and tried to sell it or take credit without changing it, then I would say he should be sued. However, since he changed it up and created a different look to it, I believe Fairey has a right to use the original. I think the judge should cancel out both lawsuits since both are technically correct. If I were the original photographer I would want rights to the original picture but wouldn't mind other people using it if they change the look and meaning.
ReplyDeletethis is a tough argument but in my opinion I think that Fairy has made this piece his own and therefore should be able to have rights to it. I can understand that the photographer may feel cheated but he only took the picture. Fairy is the one that made this picture his own and changed its entire meaning. In that case, the original photograph and this piece here are two complete different works of art and both the photographer and Fairy have the right to call each of their works their own.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is as original as a piece of artwork can be because it is based off of a previous piece. However I do not think Fairey is copying the artwork, and is making almost original in his own way.
Who has the rights to this image?
Fairey most definitely has the rights to this image. He did not steal the artwork he just made a piece that was his interpretation of was based off a previous piece, which many people do now in the art world.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
I would say Fairey is innocent. He did not mean to copy the work, he simply meant to change it and make it from his perspective. I would believe Fairey is smart enough to know that his work would be in the public eye, and because of this he most likely would make sure he did not copy.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has beeen significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
I would probably be a little aggravated at first, but then I would see that it is a completely different piece of art. And I would almost see it as flattering that someone based their work off of mine. In the end they each have there own, different, pieces of art.
I do think that this is an original piece of art work, yes the picture may have not been taken by the creator of this piece, but he drew it based off of that picture and made it his own. I think that Fairey has the right to this image because it is his art work, based off of a previous photograph. I think Fairey would be innocent if I were the judge of this case. If i were the photographer who originally took this photo, i wouldn't really have a say or the right to be mad, I would probably actually take it as a compliment that someone else wanted to use my work as a start to theirs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Fairey has the right to this peice. He took a basic picture of Obama and made it his own. He added the the color and text and made it his own. I believe that if this went to court that the court would rule in favor of Fairey. I dont see how the original photographer could be mad for taking and changing a basic picture of our president. Fairey took the piece and made it his own. The photographer cannot call this changed peice his own, Fairey definatly changed the meaning of the peice and made it his own.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteI dont think this piece is an original piece because if someone is suing him then he must of gotten it from somewhere else.
Who has the rights to this image?
I think everyone should have rights to it because he made it his own, its notlike he directly copied it.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
If i was the judge i think Fairey would not be guilty in this case.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has beeen significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
If i was the photographer, i wouldnt mind if someone else used my work of art to make it into their own. it just means they like what i did and want to make it something more.
Do you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteYes I think this is an original piece of art. It was taken and changed into something different.
Who has the rights to this image?
The Obama administration supposedly owns the rights. But Shepard Fairey edited the picture owned by the A.P.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
I would have to side with the lawyer in this case and say that it is Shepard Faireys piece. He has changed it into his own art work. I would say it is legally permisable.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has beeen significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
Because the original photographer did not call it art work and he sold it to A.P. it is out of his hands
There has been much controversy over this piece of art, and I absolutely support Shepard Fairey and his decision to counter sue. Although the picture was taken by another person, I believe this is an original and unique piece of art. This piece is original because the artist took a publically distributed material, and put his hard work, emotion and creativity into this picture which has inspired many americans in this time of economic crisis. Fairey, through his work gives people all over, hope that achieving the american dream is actually possible. I believe that since the image was publically distributed everyone has the rights to use this photo. It is for public viewing so the public should be able to use it as they feel fit. If I had to be the judge in this case I would 100% side with Shepard Fairey for the reasons I described above. Athough I do feel sympathetic for the previous photographer who took this image, in some way if I were the photographer I would feel proud and accomplished because it was "his" inital photo that turned heads on the topic. His work combined with Shepards changed the way some american's view politics and art and that is a great accomplishment in itself.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Shepard Fairey should receive credit for this photo. This picture was just a simple picture of Obama at first and now its something unique. Fairey incorporated his own sense of art with the colors and text, therefore it should be known as his piece.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the artist that created the picture of Obama is one piece of art work. Where as Fairry created a completely different piece of art work looking off of the photograph of Obama and used different materials to create it. That would be like you suing someone if they painted the landscape of you yard or something like that cause you own it...
ReplyDeleteShepard Fairey without a doubt "owns" this piece of art. In my definition of owning it he personally made it, so he owns it. Just because you take a picture of something does not mean you have the rights to it by any means. Fairey did something creative and now he is being paid for it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shepard Fairey doesn't deserve to be sued over this. He completely changed how this work of art looks. It was an originally a photograph and now it look like a painting that is barely based off of that photograph. I dont see how the AP or the original photographer have a case in this argument. I sort of agree with one of the men in the video that said maybe the image should belong to Obama because Fairey gave him the right to use that for his campaign. I also think that the democratic party could now have some claim to it because Obama was their candidate and they were paying for these campaign signs with this image on it to be produced. It just really depends on how you look at it. But I definitely dont think anyone has the right to sue in this case. It's all about money and they AP and original photographer are both wrong.
ReplyDeletei think shepard fairey is absolutley correct for doing what he is doing, there cant be more then one piece just twisted around a little then reclaimed as another piece of work, so i think he should get 28 trillion dollars from obama.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think this is an original piece of art. This is NOT the photograph, so it is a completely separate piece of art that has simple similarities with the photograph of Obama.
ReplyDeleteShepard Fairey has the rights to this image because he is the artist of this image. As for the photograph I don't think the photographer has the to the photograph because it can be easily replicated and duplicated that almost any replication can be considered the original or altogether there may be no original making it worthless.
If I were the photographer I would be honored to know that someone was inspired enough by my work to create a create piece that had simple common factors. I would congratulate Shepard Fairey on creating an new outstanding piece of art.
Yes, I do think that this is an original piece of artwork and I think it is so dumb that the man that took that picture had the nerve to actually try and sue Obama. They each have rights but I don't believe he had the right to sue him. My decision would be to go on the side of the "remake" image. I feel this has been significantly changed so he has no way of claiming it is his property.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think that this is an orignal piece of art. I feel that Shepard Fairey owns all the rights to this image. If I were the judge on this case I would side with Shepard Fairey, because he created it from just a simple photograph, and it is no longer the same image as it once was before.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this is an original piece of art changed from a photograph. I feel that there is no need to sue Obama over such a dumb topic.. it all comes down to money.. and people will try to sue for any reason they can think of.. just to get some money off of someone. It is no longer the same piece of work, considering the original was a picture.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Shepard Fairey did nothing wrong. The photo was not used in the ways that Fairey's work is used for there for he should be able to change the photo. I do think that he should give acknowledgement to the photographer, but Fairey was the artist in this piece. If I was a judge on this case I would rule in Faireys favor. That image is never looked at as the original, but is only seen as the work of art and the messages that Fairey made it to be.
ReplyDeleteI think Shepard Fairy should have the rights to his image. He transformed a taken picture into a piece of art, the medium is completely different. Not to mention this kind of work has been done before, like with Campbell soup and Andy Worhol. Giving acknowledgment to the photographer is the only thing Fairy because the work he did, he made his own.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there really was no wrong doing in this case. I think it's very common for artists to recieve inspiration from other pieces of art. The only similarity between the two pieces is the face of Obama, but Fairey made enough alteration in order to make it his own piece, giving him the right to his own artwork.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an original piece of art. No matter how the image was distorted it's still orignal art. If Worhol can get away with his Campbell Soup piece, why can't Fairey?
ReplyDeleteThe whole changing of the orignal is what helped to make this poster so iconic.
Do you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteYes I do.
Who has the rights to this image?
The Artist has the rights because he was the one who created the image.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
I would give the case at hand to the Artist Shepard Fairey because although it was a picture taken by someone else the picture was never claimed as a work of art, therefore the Artist who created the image above and claimed that that image is not a work of art can not be sued for making a work of art.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has beeen significantly changed and is no longer the same image?! I would agree that it has been changed enough to no longer be the same image and now has a different meaning.
Do you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteI think so, it has a different meaning.
Who has the rights to this image?
I'm not sure if anyone really owns the original art. The original has been put into public so much I don't see how anyone really can. The remake is owned in my belief by the artist.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
I would probably dismiss it because people get pissed off over stupid stuff like this.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has been significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
It has been changed enough that it is a new image, so no.
I do think that this is an original piece of artwork. I believe that Shepard Fairey has the rights to this image becase it is his own. I agree with Fairey's for counter suing because this image is his own. He created it to give meaning to others, more than what the "orignal" picture had done - it is his own artwork. If I were the photographer, I would agree that this picture had been changed significantly, and can no longer be condsidered mine.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think this is a original piece of art. Because the artist changed the the image substantially.
ReplyDeleteIf you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
My decision on this case would be that the photographer does not have the rights of the image.
I think that the image has been changed enough that the photographer does not have the rights anymore.
Yes i believe this is an original piece of art because it was changed to portray his own personal views. I would not say that the photographer has rights to the image. The only way they culd have rights to the image would be if they did not change it at all. After it is changed it is out of their hands.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a new piece in the regards that if you use another researcher's information in your paper, your paper itself is considered a new one. i do, however, think that the photographer of this photo should get credit just like you would in a paper. if it is mandatory in a research paper, why is it not it art?
ReplyDeletei think that its an original piece of art because of what you've shown us in class. i believe that the artist does because he made the piece of art different and interesting. If i was the photographer i couldn't take credit for what the artist has done to my photo
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if I were the photographer, I may be upset at first that Shepard Fairey didn't ask me fist to change the photo. However, I wouldn't have sued him because of it. He changed it in his own style and it's not as if it's offensive. He has the word "HOPE" at the bottom meaning to me that having Obama as president is hopeful to where maybe he'll change the US in a good way. Would it have been different if he didn't add the Warhol twist and just had the word "HOPE" at the bottem? In the end the photographer should be happy that someone took the photo and made it what it is now. People fuss over things for no reason and don't stop to understand the actual meaning of something.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this is an original piece of art and the artist has the rights to this image because even though it is based off another image the look and meaning have been changed. If i were the judge in this case I would rule in favor of the artist because of what i previously said and the fact that those images he used are for the public. If i were the photographer who originally took the photo I would not seek the rights to this image because it would no longer be mine since it was significantly changed.
ReplyDeletei think that this is an original piece because of the things that we have learned in class.
ReplyDeletei feel like the artist has the rights to the first piece but the other artist has rights to the new or slighlty altered work of art
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can see how they are trying to inforce copyright laws. I mean he has altered it in his own way and did makje a big change but if the author of the photo did not release the image as public domain or specify that it was allowed to be altered I thought that he would be allowed exclusive rights to it.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that this piece is an original piece of art. Even though it is taken from another photograph what the artist tried to do is make it his own piece of art by changing the color and cropping the picture.
ReplyDeleteEven though there are many people that could have rights to this, I think that Shepard Fairey
has the right to this particular piece because it is his and his own piece of art work, whoever took the actual picture has the right to the original one, but not this one because he wasn't the one to make it.
I would have to go with giving the rights of this piece to Fairey because he is the one who altered the photo and made it his own, nobody else did this to the picture, he saw this picture and decided it should be the one that he should alter. Also he isn't the only won to do this, many many people do this all the time.
If I were the photographer I wouldn't try to claim this particular piece because I wasn't the one to change it, the only rights to the picture that I would want is the rights to the original photo and thats all.
i agree with Sheperad because he didnt cpopyit exactly he made something his on ork by using something else he found.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is an original piece of art work. Shepard took the photograph and made it his own. I believe this is not about the image being used but more about the money, it seems like the original photographer wants some of the money that Shepard made off of his recreation. If i was the judge i would throw the case out but the law works differently so i think what i would do might not happen.
ReplyDeleteIf i was the photographer of this image I would want all rights of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this poster is an original piece of artwork. Even though it may have been traced it is an original work by Shepard Fairey. It seems that the photographer is more upset that it became such a popular and profitable image for Fairey, and he may want in on the profits.
ReplyDeletei think that the poster is an original peice. the artist was inspired by the photograph but did not copy it. the artist who produced the peice has the rights to it, no one else. we draw inspiration from everywhere.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at this picture I feel that this is an original piece of art. It was a picture that someone changed. I do not think that it is that much of a big deal if there was credit given to the original artist. If i was an artist and someone took one of my pieces of art and changed it in this way, I would feel happy that it impacted someone that much as long as they gave me credit in the first place. It is just like how Warhol took different things and did slight changes in them. They were still an original piece of art but he changed it.
ReplyDeleteI think that, yes, the remake is an original piece of art because the content is significantly changed by the color choice.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that if Fairey makes money off of this piece, so what. By placing the photograph in an article, the AP is releasing it to public domain.
The person that took the original photo has the rights to the original photo. Any alteration, no matter how small, make it a new piece. The person that made the alteration(s) has the rights to the new piece.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is an original piece of art. The photographer has the right to his photography, and Shepard Fairey has the right to his painting. Yes, they are the same picture of Barrack Obama, but one is a photograph and one is a painting, and you can tell the difference between them. If I were the photographer I would want the right to my photograph, but as long as the artist gave me credit on the photograph they used for their painting I wouldn't mind them using it.
ReplyDeleteI think the associate press has no right to sue Fairey for the art he created. The associate press took a picture, while Fairey made it a piece all his own. All the artist would have to do in my opinion is make a statement saying how he used the picture from the Associate Press and that should be the end of it. He did not make the piece for personal profit, but just for the campaign.
ReplyDeleteI don,t thing that the associated press has the right to do anything to the creator of the piece of art. Them trying to do something is not something that i really think is right. It is one of the most recognizable things from the Obama campain. If I was the judge in this case i would not rule in favor of the associated press because of the fact that I think that ir is just bad press for the president and he really does not need anymore of that these day.
ReplyDeleteI believe this poster is different than the original. The colors have been changed, giving the picture a more "cartoon" look. There is a significant difference between both photos and you can tell that. By this reasoning I think the poster is fine.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteYes, because it is not a copy of a photo.
Who has the rights to this image?
The Public.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
Everybody gets 5%: Obama, The Press, The Artist - The rest goes to the Government funds towards the Arts & Photography. Why? The Public owns Obama as he is in office, therefore not the press, but the public owns the rights. So The Public owns both photo and the artwork.
I think that the Associated Press should not have the right to do anything to the artist because he did not do anything wrong. The image was changed and made into a new piece of art. The original was a photograph. The artists work is very different. And the art is of a person, whether its a photo, or a painting the person will still look the same. The artist is not at fault for this.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is an original piece of art?
ReplyDeleteYes
Who has the rights to this image?
I believe the artist has the rights to it, but once a photo is so diluted into the population, it is everyones.
If you were the judge on this case, what would your decision be and why?
I would probably say, who cares, its a painting, he made it, whats the big deal. The original wasn't made for profit, and the election is over.
If you were the photographer that originally took this photo, would you want all the rights to the image...or would you agree that it has been significantly changed and is no longer the same image?!
I think its been changed enough to be considered different.
I feel that this piece of art belongs to the guy who created it. Art is recreated all the time. The photo was not meant to be art work at first but was eventually used as an election poster. I would judge this case to be ridiculous and drop all charges on Shepard.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the actual photographer deserves credit for the photograph, and the person who redid it deserves credit for his piece that he redid. Art is alter and changed all the time. If I was the photographer I wouldn't want the rights for the changed picture because simply i didn't do it. They're very different artworks done by both very different artists, they should have credit for what they created, whether it was an already existing piece that was altered or not.
ReplyDeleteWhen we talked about this in class, we had said that it is alot like the last project we turned in. Which was our version of a piece that changed the meaning of the artwork. The new piece was ours, but the artwork before it was changed still belonged to the original artist. I don't see what all the controversy is about especially because this new version made the photograph famous, whereas before it was just another picture of the election.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shepard. I think that if a picture is out in the open, you can take it and change it however you want. He made it into a piece of artwork that he wanted to change. I also think that the new version did make it a lot more known across the country so that was good controversy for the president. To me he shouldn't of got sued because by taking it and changing it he was just doing art.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though if the photographer wanted the rights to the photograph he would have demanded them when he took the original photo. Also, if it was published on the internet or through a public system then the photgraph is available to the public and the use of the public. Had the artist had to ask for permission and was refused but decidedt o use the photograph anyway, then maybe there would be the possibility for a law suit. But because anyone has access to it, it's almost like fair game to whomever wants to modify it. If anyone should be mad it should be the individual, the subject, of the image. It's his portrait that is being exploited for public use.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an original piece of art because even if the original picture was taken by someone else the artist still made his own version of it. Duchamp's made his own version of the Mona Lisa on a post card and wasn't sued or anything like that and he didn't draw the original. As long as you have your own unique touch on the new finished art I think that there is no harm in that.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an original piece of art because although a different person took the picture, the artist of this particular piece put his own touches on it and made it his own unique piece of work. I agree with J. Carr when he says that as long as you make your own unique touch then the new piece of artwork is your own.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is an original piece of art in that someone may have taken an common image but has put their own spin on it. Each artist has a right to their own art in which they create. As long as you have put your own effect on a piece no matter how common the picture it is your own art and your own right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shephard Fairey. It was a photograph of Obama, the photographer didn't claim the photo as a work of art, and he didn't even seem to care about the lawsuit, stating "I don't know. It's for the lawyers to decide." It is completely different from the beginning photograph. The context of Fairey's piece sends a different message than the original.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I have never watched an episode of the Colbert report before, but I enjoyed watching it! As for is this an original piece of art, before taking this class I would have to argue and say it was not an original piece, but after taking this class, I have seen new and different ways to look at things, which makes me change my belief and say that it in fact is an original piece of art.
ReplyDeleteIs this painting an original piece of artwork? This is a good questions that I had contemplated for a while. My only argument is this - when you think of Marilyn Monroe, you think of the iconic silk screen print by Andy Warhol. This print has the same basis as the Obama painting. It is a portrait ~ unless the bust is pictured in a very unique way, then that person's portrait can be used without it infringing upon copyrights, or another person's work. If the "photograph" in this case is not defined as a piece of art, therefore it is considered free game.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this is an original piece of art. Although he may have used a picture that was already taken, I feel that he changed it significantly and made it original and his own.
ReplyDeleteIf I was the photographer of the original picture, I would not mind at all if someone else took my picture and changed it into a work of art. I would actually feel honored in a way that he felt my photo was good enough to alter into an artwork.