Found: The Photograph That Inspired Obama Nation

That's interesting - I notice that there's no copyright on the IPTC info on the original - though I imagine that AP would hold the copyright (if anyone).
.

Very interesting, thanks MS

"for Obama's inuagural celebration"
.
"inuagural" is this another word dumb gunny doesn't know?

Garcia's entitled to copyright on his original photo, but I suspect Fairey's transformation of the image into another medium is sufficient to resolve the matter of credit.
.
Also, I forget the Latin for "if you snooze, you lose," but Garcia's pretty tardy raising any claim now.

"Photographers are always getting ripped off," said Garcia, who quickly added that he was not angry or seeking money from the artist who appropriated his image. "You see it everywhere. You see it on everything."
.
"I'd like to talk to Fairey," Garcia continued. "I really don't want lawyers involved. I don't want it to get ugly."
.
Let's see, in six sentences he manages to mention: (1) his photographer martyr complex, (2) widespread distribution of the poster, (3) just wants to "talk" to the artist, (4) potential exists to avoid legal entanglements, but (5) still might still get ugly.
.
Yup, no hint of a threat here! This guy is definitely not looking for money. It is totally plausible that he just wants to "talk."

MS -- I thought it was Obamas speech at the 2004 convention that inspired me. I think the only photograph that might have inspired me was Miss January of 1971.

Andy –
Liv Lindeland in 2016! She's gotta be at least as qualified as Palin!

Andy you are batting a thousand today -- I know my inspsiration was the 2004 sppech I can't imagine what MS is talking about. Of course, it may just be part of a plot to try to get us to stop dwelling on our idealism and focus on the money grubbing reality of our world.

Wow, photographers being interviewed by blogs get to go back and change what they say if they decide it makes them sound bad? Wish I had that luxury at my job. New media, what a country!

Fairey was on Colbert last week and during the interview he indicated he had not made any money off of the original.

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png')

so good luck, Mannie! And yes, the copyright belongs to AP, not the photographer.

sorry, i don't know how to embed.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215976/january-15-2009/shepard-fairey

Oh my goodness. Liv certainly has my vote. Though by 2019, she'll be approaching age 73. Not that there's anything wrong with that. So will I.

This is a great little bit of news-- I worked at that event and think it's wonderful that an image that has received so much attention came from a press conference where then-Senator Obama was calling attention to an humanitarian crisis in Africa. Let's hope he continues to lead on addressing what's happening in Darfur as President.

@MS-- "Nothing about my discussions with the photographer suggested that he was threatening to use lawyers. So the change to the quote was my doing."
.
Okay so why don't you find this problematic? I know this is a blog but are you implying that because it's a blog you are exempt from all journalistic standards. Frankly, MS if your posts are going to waste my time by providing inaccurate info I'd just as soon skip it.
.
You should have decided on the right quote before you posted and you should have checked your facts as well. Hell how often does someone here correct your spelling.

Seems strange the photographer never recognized his own image as it was EVERYWHERE. Also, if Ferry hand drew, or even hand traced the photo (rather than scanning it and posterizing it in Photoshop), it would be considered an "artist interpretation" of an image. How Ferry cropped and colored the image are elements that further remove it from the original photo, and into the interpretation realm. As they say, if Wharhol was working in today's world he'd be getting sued up the wazoo!

Oops Warhol - sorry Andy.

As with Flownover and dunedweller, I think it's unlikely the photographer has any legal - or moral - case for compensation for the use of his photograph as the basis of the artwork. If he in fact did not recognize it as his own image, then it was altered beyond the point where he could claim it as his own. The artwork was not an altered photograph, rather he artwork used a photographer's vantage point as a taking off point for an interpretion of Barack's face.
.
On the other hand, if someone other than Fairey had made the Time cover, even using his/her own photograph, they might be legally held to infringe Fairey's copyright because Fairey's image is indeed "iconic" now, and recognizable as such.

Speaking of images, this link of hundreds of front pages of the inauguration is terrific (by way of Sullivan). Images can be saved by clicking on image to enlarge, and then right-clicking.

http://c6.going.com/obama/inauguration_headlines.html

dunedweller, not really.
.
An AP photographer takes 1000s of pics a year. Can't remember all of them.

Ignorance is bliss with some people. And no I do not mean with Mannie Garcia.

Ignorance comes in the fact that people rip off photos every day from the web and think nothing of it. Unfortunately, photographers don't have an organized industry to stand behind them nor stand up for them like musicians do -- ask Metallica about Napster. Either way, it is still illegal.

Before you guys open you mouths and start screaming you can take it from the web, read the US Copyright law, no you can't in most cases. Also look through an interesting read from the American Society of Portrait Artists warning it's members of doing just what this guy did when he created the poster:

http://www.asopa.com/publications/2000winter/law.htm

And to those who are surprised by Mannie not recognizing photos, Fourlegsgood is correct. Personally I shot close to 200,000 images last year and I am sure Mannie did as well. So remembering every frame is hard to do. Especially one that was shot in 2006 -- TWO YEARS before the poster artist RIPPED it off the web.

Ha! An unauthorized derivative work! Study up, young law students. I predict this one will be on IP law final exams coast to coast this spring.
.
Query: Did the Time cover also infringe on Fairey's copyright? Defenses? If so, can Garcia be held vicariously liable for Time's infringement? If the photo was not registered with the Copyright Office, what are the damages? If the photo was registered with the Copyright Office, what are the damages?

SQR1

Already stated by Michael the TIME cover wasn't Mannie's image that was ripped off by Fairley, it was a TIME contractor.

Also, how could Mannie be liable when he was the one whose image was stolen ??

fourlegsgood: Good point. I guess I just assumed that since the Shepard Fairey (I might get sued for misspelling names!) poster was so powerful and so widely distributed, any photographer who had been shooting Obama might be curious enough to check their images (I would). But as an artist, my comments on "artist interpretation" are in no way meant to say copyright infringement is okay. My point was that the more artistic gestures that stand between the 2 pieces, the harder it is to prove.
.
smillerpj: Great link - thanks. The story about the wood sculpture did surprise me. Fortunately they kept the artists notes about blatently copying the original. Also, now I'm curious if there's a legality difference in the reproduction of a photo taken at public event with multiple photogs vs. that of a private shoot, like say Annie Lebowitz?
.
sqr1: Fairey did the Time cover, but he worked from a different photo - they were thinking ahead!