Blogs and Stories
The Obama HOPE Photo Mystery Continues!
But perhaps the best proof that Fairey transformed the photo into something all his own is that Young, a Washington-based photographer who has taken, in his words, “thousands” of pictures of Obama, was not even aware that the most ubiquitous image of the election was based on his photograph. He’d seen the HOPE poster countless times and never made the connection to his own photograph, which he snapped at a 2007 Senate confirmation hearing.
Young and Reuters worked with me to create an edition of the photograph for the exhibition I have opening at my gallery on Tuesday, “Can & Did—Graphics, Art, and Photography from the Obama Campaign,” and a print has already been bought by the Museum of Fine Art in Houston along with one of Fairey’s HOPE prints.
It’s nice to see that in this new era, everybody wins.
James Danziger was the Director of Photography at the London Sunday Times Magazine, Features Editor of Vanity Fair, and Director of Magnum New York. He runs the gallery Danziger Projects in New York and blogs at The Year in Pictures.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
One Reason Magazines Are Suffering: Their Covers
James Danziger was the director of photography at the London Sunday Times Magazine, features editor of Vanity Fair, and director of Magnum New York. He runs the gallery Danziger Projects in New York and blogs at The Year in Pictures.
As a copyright lawyer, I am not so convinced that the use qualifies as "fair use." I would hope the photographer in case wouldn't raise a fight but I think it might be interesting if you actually got some lawyers who know about fair use to debate the point. Having a journalist (even one who's a lawyer) assert that it's fair use doesn't make it so and suggests that the author doesn't get how the fair use test works.
I also agree that this may not fall under the fair use clause.
I also find it odd that Mr. Fairey appeared to run from any mention of the photographer.
It is good that this has been solved as the photographer deserves credit for his very important part of history.
What distresses is that apparently Mr. Fairey did not feel the same but perhaps he has put the money factor ahead of what is only right.
Oh come on now, haven't you lawyers had enough of a hand in ruining what is good about this country. As a photographer and also an artist, I would like to say that you should really all just get a life and leave the creative process to the talented. Appropriation of imagery has been an accepted form of art inspiration for decades now, think back to Andy and Campbells.
Please, why don't you all just take up suing yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone.
I recently saw Mr. Fairey on The Colbert Report. He has stated that he takes no money for use of the image and in fact, has gone after people who are trying to use it to make money. He has basically given free use of the image to the Obama organization.
Since none of the parties concerned now seem upset perhaps the lawyers can just leave this alone and let people enjoy it.
Question: did Fairey do it for the money? Do you know, or are you making an assumption?
Yep, I'm in agreement that this is not fair use. As a graphic artist/illustrator for the last 17 years, this would be a big no-no in my opinion.
Admittedly I'm not an attorney, but this seems against all I've understood about fair use.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Being only vaguely familiar with Shepard Fairey and just for fun I did a little digging on Google.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
Interesting reading for sure, and while one could argue the writer(s) may have an axe to grind, the evidence they present is interesting to say the least.
Shepard Fairey has a long history of profiting from plagarism and pushing the boundaries of acceptable fair use. For a good overview read:
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
Fairey's work is art at its most dishonest and commercial. He may have created a great image for Obama but that does not mean he shouldn't at least give credit to the original photographer.
Relax people. You are missing the point. The man is a grafiti artist. I am sure he cares little for this academic debate you are having. And please tell me who was harmed, really harmed. Only John McCain,
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
It's a photo. Reuters photographers take thousands, if not millions of photos per year. Why is everyone going bonkers about copyright? He was in a public place. Any photographer could have taken it - including Joe Public. Then a photo editor thought it looked good. And it went out on the wire. But then it's part of the public record. Using it for a piece of art is, well, totally fair-use. Why fuss. Reuters and the Young are probably just chuffed that someone bothered to check. They'll be producing millions more iconic photos this year without a blink to what online artists are doing. I hope that Mr Young gets some publicity out of this, and Reuters just, well, keeps taking pictures.
I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn. To those lawyers that posted here, please, get a life and put a sock in it. This is absolutely fair use! So please change my sheets and leave me clean towels. Thank you!
Fairey made many more changes than Andy Warhol did with his pop art "portraits" of Monroe, et al. The original photograph doesn't strike me as anymore intriguing than the innumerable other snaps of Obama (not to mention the akward crop).
Fairey softened certain facial elements, extended the body to create a more natural framing and introduced dramatic shading effects that are not apprarent in the source image. Fairey added quite a bit to the visual impact of the original photograph (which fact accounts for its enduring appeal).
It may be debatable as to whether the digital illustration and manipulation of a photograph of a widely pictured public official is "fair use," however, since the photog doesn't seem to have a problem, can't we just enjoy the inauguration?
Fairey..fair use. Am I the only one who finds the humor? Seriously though, it's all part of a beautiful, bigger concept known as the free flow of ideas and sharing of intellectual property. Sometimes genius is born.
So basically Shepard Fairey "sampled" Jonathan Daniel's photograph?
Did he simply take the photo and send it through a filter in Photoshop, or was it more "Original" than that?
Would it be fair to call Mr. Fairey the P. Diddy of graphic artists?
Um, I think maybe the photo on this page is a closer match, actually. http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/reminiscing-about-future -barack-obamas.html
nicfulton
"And it went out on the wire. But then it's part of the public record. Using it for a piece of art is, well, totally fair-use."
Actually, using it for a piece of art is, well, totally making a derivative work - a right belonging to the copyright holder.
Another interesting question is whether the photo was a work made for hire, which may explain why the photographer isn't pursuing the issue.
I would like to point out the Fairey's "Andre the Giant" OBEY print is eerily similar to the graphic art of Barbara Kruger. Both use a black and white photo, and with white on red, italicized captions.
Fairey obviously did not simply run the photo through Photoshop and put his name on it (for instance look at Obama's right ear in each picture, they are noticeably different sizes, also his hair is distinctly different). The print by Fairey is clearly a separate drawing that simply used the photo in lieu of having Obama sitting in his studio in person. In addition, he has not sold his work, and has actively worked to prevent others from selling it, which makes this a really moot point. The only worthwhile thing to come from this article is to reveal the original photographer; beyond that it is simply stirring the pot to no real avail.
nonsense, read the link above....look at the theft involved...this is just another appropriation in a long line of them. A complete thief and liar archived in the national gallery.
Unoriginal thinking and shortcuts -- stealing images -- great role model for the kids....right?
This is comical. This "mystery" has not been solved. That is NOT the source photograph. I have seen the source photograph posted on a message board that specializes in the collection of art prints last year after I purchased the print, the site is www.expressobeans.com
The original photograph is black and white and it is an identical match to the image in the print. It is also identical in composition to a black and white JFK photo as well. There was no "mirroring" or "skewing" or "adding of the tie" going on. It is an exact copy of a photograph that Fairey "posterized".
To the people that think that Shep ran the image through some filter, WRONG again. This is a hand done, perhaps done in illustrator but each color was hand masked and then created into individual screens used for the printing. You are sorely mistaken if you think you can just run an image through illustrator and get anything close to the quality. I have one on my wall. I was lucky enough to purchase the print when Shep put it up one night late last Feb. I have done a lot of research on this since the print value has sky rocketed, I'm sorry but this story is dead wrong. Keep trying...
LOL I didnt even catch the part about the Museum of Fine Art in Houston having the photograph next to the print... LOL!!! Wow...
Oh and another thing "HOPE" was not the first. "PROGRESS" was, along with "paster" posters that are put on on buildings with paste. Shep did the first screen print poster on his own only 350 of them, sold them for $40, the campaign got wind of it and asked him to make more but with "HOPE", he made 400 of those though they are not a screen print but an "offset" which is like a giant stamp that places the color down, then the image exploded from there and countless were printed on a thin white paper... FYI just so you all don't continue to spread more false info about this whole thing.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.