But I suppose we’ve reached a deadlock.

Peace.

Rules and contracts and the legal framework are there to protect creativity. I simply don’t like it when someone uses that system selfishly.

Again, why, if he’s going to go so far to hold onto his pride does he not respect Garcia’s? It just shows, as his whole “guerilla” packaging does, his character. Is as does.

Peace.

(Check out this interview: http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Shepard+Fairey%3A+Purveyor+of+Hope/)

He did also get a Thank-You letter from Obama: http://obeygiant.com/headlines/check-it-out

Point is, the use of the images in the campaign has absolutely nothing to do with the fair use case discussed here.

Musicians who sample and remix are required to credit original owners. Koons was required to pay for “Puppies”. All I’m sayin’.

Again, it’s not what he did, it’s how he did it and his subsequent actions. Making light of it by comparing it to other photos and saying that the expression is in the public domain… then why didn’t he take the picture? Why did he need to directly, obviously, admittedly, manipulate an existing photo. Isn’t he creative enough?

Peace.

But the photograph IS mundane. Why else would there have been so much debate as to which of the various photo-wannabes was actually used? Watch this – http://blip.tv/file/1821209 – the part where Lessig shows the dozen strikingly similar photos taken by various journalists at various times. This “expression” is just one of Obama’s own facial mannerisms, not so hard to “capture” and not much creativity involved in the act of doing so. The expression itself, as such, is in the public domain. THAT is what Fairey built upon, not the particular photographic facsimile of said expression.

To return to my art in the analogy, the vinyl is a canvas, not the original photo. So your comparison doesn’t work. In my case, it’s the photo of the musicians that compare to the original photo of Obama, and I’ve stated that I’ll give credit as desired reasonably to those photographers if they ask. See the post I’ve put as my website link in this comment. I’ve since preemptively credited as many as I could find the source on my website.

It’s not what you do, it’s how you do it. It’s a matter of intent in action.

Peace.

I don’t think generic photojournalism constitutes artistic creation – all due respect to the (allegedly) AP photographer. Fairey’s art is, and generated more, ongoing cultural commentary, the journalistic photograph is a static snapshot of a nondescript moment in political reality. It’s like saying that your art violates the original vinyl even though it builds something completely different from it, a new kind of creative expression – to answer your unnecessarily rhetorical question, Fairey’s work serves creativity precisely by taking the tools of the mundane and using them to craft the extraordinary stuff of cultural significance.

Peace.