Copyright: How Much is Enough?
One of the most confusing and often most frustrating issues facing image designers is copyright. As an artist it’s my best friend, but as a designer who incorporates other source material in finished creations, it’s also a challenging foe. When you dig deeper into copyright, you will find that the rules are often blurry and can be far from straight forward.
When I was in art school there was often talk of derivative works and “fair use”. If an image is changed enough to become a new creation there’s little to worry regarding copyright… at least that’s what I thought as a student. Since I’ve come to see it as much more complex than that and quite honestly I’m not sure I get it any better now that I did then.
Just yesterday I read an interesting article about the images above and the potential copyright issues facing the artist who created the design on the right. The Associate Press owns the original and wants credit and compensation for all of the various ways the new image has been used.
The article defined fair use like this:
“Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.”
Shepard Fairey, an L.A. street artist, (or rather, his lawyers)¬?cited¬?”fair use” when confronted about the copyright concerns being expressed by the AP:
“We believe fair use protects Shepard’s right to do what he did here,” says Fairey’s attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. “It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP.”
Still, the AP is aggressively pursuing it’s case and is in discussion with Fairey’s attorney:
“AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey’s attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution.”
It’s hard to say where this thing will end up, but I find it fascinating that the laws are fuzzy enough for there to be discussions to be had. If it were to go to court, the ruling could go either way depending on the judge. One judge might rule in favor of the AP, another in favor of Fairey.
Personally, I feel like his design is a new and original work and should be treated as such. It doesn’t harm the AP photo, and in my view only enhances it. It’s not as if he simply ran a Photoshop filter and added some type. This is a custom illustrated piece that shows creativity, good composition and excellent treatment. In my view it takes it well beyond the photo. Of course I’m not a lawyer, and I’m also not a photographer, so my graphic artist/artist bias probably effects that opinion.
What do you think? Should they throw him in jail, or use him to set a new precedent?
Nick Alexander said,
Wrote on February 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
As a photographer, I agree with the AP. The artwork was reused for a commercial use. Compensation may be demanded, and © remains with the AP. Although, I am more worried about the image being reminiscent of communist artwork.
Midnight Oil Productions | Copyright: How Much is Enough part 2 said,
Wrote on February 10, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
[...] Copyright: How Much is Enough? – 90 viewsNew website launching … now! – 89 viewsThe Wired Church 2.0 Now Available – 86 viewsAnnounce It! On sale thru Feb 14th – 81 viewsLogin and Registration – 55 views2009 Sampler Sale Ends Soon – 53 viewsSuper Bowl – An Opportunity to Learn – 50 viewsFlame 3 – 32 viewsThe Language of Video – 31 viewsMediaShout 4 Coming Soon – 20 views Polls [...]