What is Fairey Telling the A.P.? by Ebony Brown
(Image: Mannie Garcia/Associated Press - nytimes.com, feb 8, 2009)
Speak of the devil, my previous blog entry nearly kissed Shepard Fairey's feet, placing him on the bricky pedestal of the School of Art+Design's Richard & Dolly Maass Gallery. Although copyright infringement threatens to dissolve Obama poster boy's cloud nine as per this NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE , I refuse to discredit Fairey's contribution to the college.
Fairey, and other artist who regularly 'appropriate' existing art into their own artwork are probably well acquainted with the statutes of copyright infringement.
David Schwarz Project 6: Infobbable, the graffiti/street art inspired group show held at the Richard and Dolly Maass Gallery in which Shepard Fairey participated, exposed students and visitors to a contemporary body of graphic art that was both engaging and legal; no arrests were made (this time). While DSP6: Infobbable may have unnerved some, the exhibition seemed to be well received by both the on and off campus community.
Any thoughts on reappropriation and copyright infringment as it relates to Fairey's case or similar cases?
1 comments:
Hear what Jack Reznicki, (Of Photoshop World) has to say about the subject matter of my post.
"Some people have also quoted that the image was changed a certain “percentage.” That’s an urban myth and doesn’t exist in the law. The determination if a work is a derivative is what’s called the “common man” test. Very basically, it means if the average person holds the original and the copy and can see that one was derived from the other, then there is an infringement. There is no “percentage” threshold."
FULL ARTICLE: http://tinyurl.com/aff7dw
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving a comment!