Can You Trust AP Reporting On Its Own Lawsuit With Shepard Fairey?

from the fact-checking? dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the incredibly dumb move by Shepard Fairey to lie and destroy evidence. The whole thing was just ridiculous -- though the Associated Press has been playing it up as if it's proof that its position on the lawsuit between the two has been vindicated. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. While it is incredibly stupid, it doesn't change the fair use questions at issue. But, if we're going to talk credibility, shouldn't the Associated Press be careful to actually fact check its own articles on a case involving itself? In announcing the news about the Fairey revelation, the AP claimed that Fairey's lawyers had withdrawn from the case. However, his lawyers say that's simply not true, though they may withdraw from the case.

What's really amazing, is the AP's response when this was brought to their attention:

A spokesman for the Associated Press said today that there were "numerous versions and updates" to the breaking news over the weekend and that he was not sure if the Associated Press had run a clarification or correction.

Sure it was "breaking news," but it involved the AP itself. You would think they would fact check the basics.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shepard Fairey Destroys Evidence, Goodwill; Harms His Case For No Good Reason

from the grow-up dept

On Friday morning, someone "working with" Shepard Fairey alerted me that some news was coming out that day about his lawsuit with the Associated Press over his famous Barack Obama poster:

I finally got the "official" statement from Fairey late on Friday, just as I was about to leave work for the weekend, and the whole thing was so ridiculous that I just figured I'd leave it until today. Apparently, Fairey, for absolutely no good reason, tried to destroy evidence and then lie about which photo he actually used to make his poster. He's now come clean about this, and while he's right in his statement that this shouldn't have any impact on the underlying case, it certainly doesn't help. It was already pretty well known that Fairey was hardly the poster child of fair use -- given that he has a history of going after others who copy his own work, despite being an "appropriation artist" himself. But, even so, this is beyond dumb -- something I don't say lightly.

Fairey still has a very strong fair use claim -- which is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Fairey did something incredibly stupid here. Even if he used the image the AP claimed he did (which he now admits), it still seems like this is an obvious case of fair use. But destroying evidence and lying -- especially when there was no good reason to do so -- just harms his credibility and makes it that much more likely that he'll lose his case not for any legitimate reason, but because of his own separate actions in dealing with this case. There are important fair use issues at play here, and Fairey just made it that much harder to maintain the high ground.

While some are pointing out that this is the sort of thing that happens when copyright laws always seem to stack the deck against fair use, that's still no excuse for lying and trying to destroy evidence. Yes, the system sucks, but doing something like this only harms an otherwise strong case.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images... Pisses Off Stipple Artist

from the brewing-legal-battle? dept

If you're sitting around waiting for the Shepard Fairey lawsuit to move forward, here's another brewing situation to follow. As you probably know, the Wall Street Journal is famous for its "stipple" illustrations of various newsmakers -- in fact, some people consider it to be quite an accomplishment in life to be memorialized in a WSJ stipple image. Appropriation artist Jose Maria Cano obviously recognizes this and has created a series of paintings called the Wall Street 100 -- made up of large painted versions of the WSJ's stipple images. There's no effort, whatsoever, to disguise this. In fact, the painting even include snippets of text around the images:

The fact that the collection of images is called the Wall Street 100 might be another tipoff. And yet... the WSJ stipple artist who created the original Obama stipple that was used for the image above is pretty upset about all of this, and says that the Wall Street Journal legal team "is on top of this case." If this actually turns into a lawsuit, there's probably a much stronger copyright claim here than in the Shepard Fairey case, but again, I'm left wondering what good this would do. The complaint from the original artist, Noli Novak, isn't about money (she doesn't even own the rights to the images), but about Cano getting credit for her artwork -- even though it's pretty clear that Cano's work was simply making paintings out of the WSJ images. Cano seems to be doing standard appropriation art, taking something from elsewhere and turning it into "artwork." While you can understand why Novak might be offended, it's difficult to see what sort of "loss" there is here that's worth being concerned about. Why not just be happy that someone decided the little stipple drawings were worthy of being ripped from the newsprint and turned into serious art?

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court: It's Fair Use To Use Exec Photos In A Griper's Wanted Poster

from the fair-use-it-is dept

We've had some interesting discussions around here concerning "fair use" lately -- especially in talking about the Shepard Fairey case. Some have suggested that because Fairey didn't do "enough" to change the look of the photo, it's not fair use. But, of course, that's now how fair use works. As an example of this, here's a recent lawsuit involving an angry blogger who set up some "gripes" sites against a certain company. He also created "WANTED" posters/postcards, using photos of execs that he pulled off the corporate internet page. Among other things, the company sued the griper, claiming copyright infringement for the use of the photos, but the court ruled in favor of fair use, even though the guy used the photos as they were. The company had tried to argue that since the guy didn't really change the images, there was no fair use, but the court dismissed that:

Sedgwick argues that there can be no fair use [as to the unaltered photos on the postcards] where, as here, Defendant did not alter the photographs of North and Posey.... [But] the salient inquiry is whether the use of the photos, in the specific context used, was transformative.... "[M]aking an exact copy of a work may be transformative so long as the copy serves a different function than the original work[.]"

Here, there can be no legitimate dispute that Defendant's use of North and Posey's photographs was transformative. Both images originally were used by Defendant for promotional reasons. Defendant, however, used the photographs as a vehicle for criticizing the Company. Specifically, both photographs are superimposed on postcards that mimic "WANTED" posters. Above each picture is the heading, in a large font, which states: "WANTED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS." The copy accompanying the photographs criticizes Sedgwick and its management's alleged mistreatment of claimants and questionable practices, and urges the public to report any misdeeds to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorney Generals. When viewed in context, it is clear that Defendant used North and Posey's photographs for a fundamentally different purpose than they were originally intended by transforming them into a vehicle for publicizing and criticizing Sedgwick's alleged business practices. In view of the above, the Court finds that the first fair use factor weighs strongly in favor of fair use.

Apply that same reasoning to the Shepard Fairey case, and you've got a clear transformation as well. The use was quite different than the original (news vs. political campaigning). Once again, a good reminder that "fair use" goes a bit further than what some people think. Separately, in the original link above, Eric Goldman points out that the other parts of the lawsuit against this guy were smartly tossed out as an anti-SLAPP violation.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

By The AP's Own Logic, The AP Ripped Off Obama

from the creative-thinking... dept

Law professor Doug Lichtman has a monthly podcast (on an annoyingly flash-only website) called the Intellectual Property Colloquium. A few months back, we discussed the episode that looked at file sharing damages. I must admit that I tend to disagree with a significant percentage of Lichtman's conclusions on intellectual property, but unlike many copyright maximalists, I tend to believe he's much more intellectually honest on these issues. His positions don't seem to come from a "more is absolutely better because it makes me/my clients more money" position, but he honestly tends to believe that greater copyright leads to a greater net outcome, and tends to argue reasonably about it -- though, I believe some of that reasoning, and the assumptions that underpin it are faulty.

In the latest podcast, Lichtman and three guests discuss "fair use" with most of the focus being on the Shepard Fairey case. Lichtman talks with one of Fairey's lawyers (Mark Lemley), a lawyer for the AP (Dale Cendali) and finally the General Counsel of the NY Times, Ken Richieri. It won't surprise many, I'm sure to say, that I strongly agreed with the points Lemley made, in explaining (a) how Fairey's use is almost certainly fair use. But the debate between Lemley and Lichtman is still quite worthwhile.

The key point that Lichtman keeps jumping back to is an interesting attempt to justify blocking fair use on what (at first glance) appears to be free market principles. That is, Lichtman states, repeatedly, that because Fairey could have licensed an image of Obama prior to making his artwork, there shouldn't be fair use. His argument is that this is as free market approach, and that fair use might not even need to be considered. To Lichtman, if there is a "functioning" market that can be made, there's no fair use. At a first pass, this may sound quite appealing to free marketer/libertarian types. But it's wrong. That's because what he's talking about is not a true free market at all. It's an artificial market, based entirely on a gov't backed artificial scarcity. It's a market built on a monopoly, which is no free market at all.

It also seems to go against the very intent of copyright itself, in that it suggests that as long as there's a "reasonable" tollbooth that can be placed on things, there shouldn't be fair use. But if that tollbooth is actually creating friction and decreasing, limiting or hindering creative output, then it can and should be seen not as "promoting the progress," but the exact opposite. Lemley does a decent job on the spot to warn against the frictions caused by such a "permission" culture, in that it's quite unreasonable in many cases to have to get permission, but Lichtman dismisses this as a minor issue, or really one that can be worked out separately. To me, that suggests a rather distinctly poor assumption about creativity and creative culture these days. Requiring ad hoc permission on any potential use would create massive chilling effects on all sorts of creativity. Lichtman also suggests that a third party intermediary (perhaps YouTube) could serve as a clearinghouse for such rights, but that too creates all sorts of problems.

Overall though, this highlights the problem I have with those who continue to support strong copyrights under a "free market" perspective. A true free market for a good with infinite supply will price that good at zero. But copyright distorts that market to limit that possibilities. It's as if some believe that any market represents a free market, even if that market is massively inefficient. Back in the days of the sugar monopolies, there was "a market" for sugar, but it was not a fair market price, because of the gov't backed monopoly. Or, to make the point clearer, today there is no "market" for air, despite the fact that it's quite valuable to all of us mammals who like to breathe. We could, in theory, create a gov't backed market for air, recognizing its value, and forcing people to pay to breathe, but most people inherently recognize how inefficient and wasteful that would be. Yet, content has the same fundamental (effectively) limitless supply as air (if anything, air is more limited). And yet, some think it needs a similar artificial and inefficient market.

As for the rest of the podcast, Cendali's defense of the AP's position was an incredible stretch (and, it was disappointing that Lichtman softballed his responses to her, pretending to "channel" what Lemley might say). Her defense was effectively: "The AP relies on licensing to survive. We need to survive. If what Shepard Fairey did was fair use, then it would destroy the AP, thus it can't be fair use." That's wrong on a variety of levels, and Lichtman barely touched on any of them. The purpose of copyright isn't to protect the business model of a single company. I could create a company that is harmed by fair use of my works, but that doesn't mean they're not fair use. Cendali also induced a guffaw from me in response to Lichtman's question about why the AP didn't notice the fact that its image was being used. Her response was that since the AP has so many images, it would be impossible to track them all and see if they're being used. Indeed, but no one was asking that. What Lichtman asked (and failed to follow up on) was why the AP didn't notice that this image -- which was being used everywhere -- was based on an AP image. No one expected the AP to track all its images, but you would think with such an iconic image getting so much coverage, that the AP would notice.

Cendali, keeps trying to suggest that the Mannie Garcia photo was something special, but fails to explain (even Lichtman pushes back somewhat, and Cendali answers a different question) what parts of the photo are actually protectable under copyright. She basically just says that because Garcia was a professional photographer, that the work is clearly covered by copyright. That's not how copyright works, though. She also keeps saying that because Fairey picked this particular photo it proves that the photo had something special. But, if he'd picked a totally different photo, she'd say the same thing. The simple fact is that Fairey could only pick one photo to make this picture, and this is the one he chose:

"He could have selected any one of probably hundreds if not thousands of photographs, But he selected this particular photograph, and he selected it for a reason, as he's already stated in various interviews. He was looking for a particular photograph that presented Obama in a particular way, in a hopeful way, in a way looking forward to the future... This wasn't just any random photograph... He was looking for a particular photo... and for him to now minimize that is not fair."

No, what's not fair is claiming that any of that is the AP's to own. None of it. Not a single part of it was. All of that -- the hope, the way he was looking, was simply there. What made him choose it was the look on Obama's face -- which is not Garcia's creative output, and thus cannot be covered by copyright. In fact, the most frustrating thing of all is that Cendali repeatedly claims that Fairey was ripping off Garcia (and the AP), but misses the obvious problem with that argument: which is that if her argument is correct, then the AP and Garcia also ripped off Obama, since it was his creativity in looking the way he did and making the facial expression he did. Once again, such externalities are apparently only acceptable when the AP benefits. But, Cendali seems to ignore that, and Lichtman lets her get off, noting that he basically agrees with her.

The final guest was actually a pleasant surprise. Richieri notes that he's not a copyright lawyer, but a newspaper lawyer, and thus doesn't approach things from an "ownership" perspective, but a "fairness" perspective, and notes the importance of fair use in the news business. He doesn't add too much new to the conversation, but it is refreshing to hear someone who, unlike the AP, seems to recognize that trying to own every last word/phrase/headline doesn't really make much sense.

Overall, the podcast is worth listening to, but the Cendali section may involve a bit of headbanging for it being so blatantly mistaken on the very basics of copyright law.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shepard Fairey Case Gets More Complex: Mannie Garcia Claims The Photo Is His, Not The AP's

from the the-shifting-feelings-of-Mannie-Garcia dept

The Shepard Fairey case continues to get more and more bizarre. You may recall that, back in January, someone figured out which photo Shepard Fairey had used as the basis of his iconic Barack Obama poster.

Fairey never denied using a random photo he found online, but had no idea which one. Once the correct photo was found, the photographer in question, Mannie Garcia, didn't seem to mind at all. In fact, we wrote about how nice it was that he didn't cry out infringement, but instead he was happy the photo was used:

"I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It's a really cool piece of work."

On top of that, his only request would be getting Fairey to send him a signed copy of the poster:

"I wouldn't mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall."

Of course, soon after that, the Associated Press, for whom Garcia was working at the time, demanded money from Fairey, and the two are now involved in a lawsuit over the issue. When that happened, I remember reading an interview with Garcia (which unfortunately I can't find now), where he noted that he never signed anything granting the AP the copyrights to his photos. But, more recently, it seemed like Garcia had done a total 180 and now claimed he was upset by the poster:

"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."

There's no way to square this with his original comments. One of them is untrue. But, perhaps the lure of getting some extra cash got into Garcia's mind... That theory might gain some more weight given that he's now filed with the court to "intervene" in the case, claiming that he holds the copyright on the photo and the AP is falsely claiming that it holds the copyright. On top of that, though, the filing says that he believes Fairey infringed on Garcia's rights. Again, this does not seem to agree with Garcia's original comments which certainly brings his motives into question.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. The fact that neither Garcia nor the AP noticed that it was this photo that was used makes a pretty strong case that this use was transformative fair use. On top of that there's an argument that Fairey didn't make use of any of the actual creative elements of the photo (i.e., the stuff that's actually copyrightable), and thus there's no infringement. But the bigger point? This photo would have been lost in a sea of other Obama photos if Fairey hadn't used it. The fact that so many people now even know of Garcia's existence as a photographer is due entirely to Shepard Fairey. If anything, Garcia owes Fairey a huge thank you for promoting his photograph.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition

from the have-fun-with-it,-people dept

Now this ought to be fun to watch. We've written plenty of stuff about the ongoing legal fight between artist Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press. And, every time we write about it, someone always points out that Fairey is often just as bad as the AP. Despite being an "appropriation" artist, who regularly uses the works of others in his own work (something we think is great), he's also been known to legally threaten others for doing the same with his own work. So, it looks like someone has decided to poke both with a stick, to see who gets provoked first. That someone is artist Evan Roth. ChurchHatesTucker alerts us that Roth has launched his "Intellectual Property Asshole Competition" where he is selling, via his website, hand-painted version of both the Mannie Garcia/AP photo and Shepard Fairey's poster... and will see who is the first to send him a cease and desist. While we never think it's a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shepard Fairey Points Out That The AP Used His Image Without A License

from the getting-down-and-dirty dept

In the latest skirmish between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over copyright concerning his iconic poster of Barack Obama, Fairey has filed new counterclaims against the AP, including that the AP used the photo of Fairey's poster without getting a license. He also lists out a number of other images of artwork that the AP did not get a license to use, but which it uses within photos, and then states:

The doctrine of unclean hands and basic principles of equity prohibit The AP from contending that Counterclaim Defendants' Obama Works infringe The AP's copyrights when The AP itself exploits the copyrighted work of Fairey and other artists without permission and in a manner that is far less transformative than the Obama Works, as illustrated but not limited to, the photographs listed above.

It seems this battle is getting nasty. Of course, while making these claims may feel good, it's hard to believe that they'll be all that compelling. The AP will clearly claim that its photos of these pieces of artwork were fair use, as part of news commentary. But, that's probably part of the point being raised by Fairey's legal team. It's unlikely to believe that the AP really abused Fairey's copyright or the copyrights of these other artists, but if it can get the AP defending its acts on fair use principles, then they can easily use the AP's words against it, in explaining why Fairey's image is also covered by fair use.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is The AP Invoking The DMCA Over The Obama Poster?

from the dmca-abuse dept

We've been covering the ongoing legal brouhaha between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over whether or not his iconic Obama poster was copyright infringement of an Associated Press photo -- with most of the focus being on whether or not the use was protected by fair use. However, the EFF is noting something quite odd (and quite troubling) in the AP's countersuit against Fairey: it's claiming that his post violates the DMCA. That should leave you scratching your head, considering that the DMCA seems almost entirely unrelated to Fairey making a poster. But the AP seems to be claiming that in removing the little copyright notice beneath its photo, Fairey violated section 1202.

As the EFF notes, since Fairey didn't "strip" the data from the image, but merely appears to have cropped the image for his purposes, it's hard to see how Fairey actually violated the DMCA here. However, more to the point, the EFF explains why this is likely been thrown into the case by the AP. By invoking the DMCA, it adds much greater potential statutory fines, than for a straight copyright infringement case. That gives the AP a much bigger potential award -- which it can use to pressure Fairey into settling. As the EFF points out, such huge potential fines creates a pretty massive chilling effect on others -- something all too common with the DMCA.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Has Mannie Garcia Changed His Tune About Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster?

from the unfortunate,-if-true dept

The Wall Street Journal is running an editorial by L. Gordon Crovitz, discussing the ongoing legal battle between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press over Fairey's iconic poster of Barack Obama that was used during the campaign:

The editorial admits that the legal issues aren't entirely clear, but definitely seems to lean towards the AP's side of the story, including making a rather odd assertion that this case is different than cases of people using snippets of songs on YouTube because "there's no opportunity to license snippets of songs and no harm done" to musicians whose music is used on YouTube. Now, I actually agree that there's really no harm done by music on YouTube, but I would imagine that some of the musicians engaged in ongoing legal battles against YouTube might disagree with Crovitz -- and he's not using the argument in the way we would. He's saying that music on YouTube is a different story compared to the AP and the original photographer who "make their livings selling their work." That may be true, but as I hope Crovitz knows, just because you make a living selling your work, it doesn't mean that fair use doesn't apply.

Also troubling is the false implication from Crovitz that since the AP and Garcia make their livings selling their work, this poster somehow diminishes that ability. I can't see how anyone could make that claim. In both cases, it would seem to have only increased the ability of both the AP and Garcia to make money, rather than decreased it. This particular photo wasn't exactly a huge money maker for the AP or Garcia -- and now it (and they!) are getting a ton of attention because of it.

But, perhaps most troubling may be the quotes Crovitz uses in support of his argument from the photographer, Garcia. As we noted way back when Garcia was first identified by someone else as the photographer, he didn't mind at all and even seemed flattered:

"I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It's a really cool piece of work.... I wouldn't mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall."

But, when Crovitz spoke to him, he seems to have changed his tune:

"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."

It's really too bad if Garcia has changed his tune. It was really great, for once, to see someone flattered that their work inspired someone to do something great with it, rather than becoming litigious.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Anything In Shepard Fairey's Image Actually Copyrightable By The AP?

from the searching...-searching...-searching... dept

With a lawsuit underway after the Associated Press accused artist Shepard Fairey of copyright infringement over his iconic Barack Obama poster (Fairey initiated the actual lawsuit, asking for a declaratory judgment that his image did not infringe, but that was after the AP publicly stated they were going to go after him for infringement), many are looking over the legal issues, and examining whether or not Fairey's use is fair use. In our initial post on the subject, it seemed pretty obvious that it was fair use, in large part because the AP didn't even realize it was an AP photo until someone else pointed it out -- suggesting that it was a transformative work, which represents a big part of the "test" for fair use.

However, law professor Peter Friedman, has a very interesting look at some of the relevant case law, pointing out that courts have clearly said that the elements of a photograph that are copyrightable are only those elements created by the photographer. He quotes some recent court rulings that have found that the copyright only covers those specific things (e.g., "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved"), but elements beyond that are not covered by copyright. Friedman then points out that Fairey's image uses none of those supposedly copyrightable elements.

Basically, Fairey used Obama's pose -- which was not set up by the photographer, thus not covered -- and changed pretty much everything else about the image. So, he's wondering, what in the iconic image actually is covered by copyright?

Fairey's poster was not a copy of the photograph. It used one element, the angle of Obama's face, and changed everything else from the photograph. I doubt the choice of the angle was a creative choice on the part of the photographer. First, I would be surprised if the angle was not forced on him by the place the photographic pool was required to be, and, second, the angle is so generic that I can hardly imagine it represents the kind of creative decision that amounts to originality. If Fairey had simply painted a copy of the photograph, I'd agree that it was an infringement. But he didn't. He changed everything except the angle of the head. And surely the choice of subject matter for the photograph was not a creative one.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AP Demands Money For Iconic Obama Poster Image

from the asking-for-a-fight dept

Just last week, we wrote about the question of whether or not the iconic image used on Obama posters that was created by street artist Shepard Fairey was copyright infringement. For a while, no one (including Fairey) could figure out what photo was the basis for the image. But a photojournalist tracked it down, and discovered it was by a photojournalist named Mannie Garcia, who was doing work for the Associated Press at the time. Garcia didn't mind at all, but as we noted in our post, the AP might take a different view on things, since it's so aggressive with copyright. However, even we thought the AP wouldn't be so stupid as to actually demand payment for the use of the image... but we were wrong.

Yes, the Associated Press is now claiming that the use of its image is copyright infringement and is demanding payment. Of course, it's probably worth pointing out that, until a week and a half ago, the AP had no idea that the poster was made using one of its images. If that's not a transformative (i.e., allowed) use of the image, it's difficult to say what is. Given the posturing on both sides, it doesn't look like Fairey (who's smartly being represented by Stanford's Fair Use Project) is going to back down. Hopefully, the Associated Press is finally taught what fair use means. It could use the education.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Infringement And Obama's Iconic Campaign Poster

from the life-in-an-age-of-copyright dept

In one of my meetings last week in Washington DC, during a discussion on copyright, someone mentioned (in an offhand manner) that I should look into the copyright questions surrounding the rather iconic Barack Obama campaign poster that, by now, you've probably all seen:

However, as many (though not all) people know, this poster was not created by the campaign, but a street artist named Shepard Fairey, who admitted that he just grabbed a photo of Obama from Google Images in order to create the photo, but had no idea who had actually taken the photo. Thus, as was pointed out to me, technically, all of those posters were almost certainly violating someone's copyright. It was an interesting question, but before I even had a chance to look into it, one of our readers, Mark Rosedale, sent in a story about exactly this question. Apparently, after some research, a photo journalist from Philadelphia named Tom Gralish had tracked down the original photograph -- complete with a copyright credit to freelance photographer Mannie Garcia, who was apparently on assignment from the Associated Press in 2006 when he took the following photo: The good news, of course, is that, in a follow up, Garcia seems perfectly happy that his photo was used, and not at all upset: "I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It's a really cool piece of work." In fact, he admits he did not even realize that his own photo was the inspiration, though, he says "it always seemed so familiar." He does admit: "I wouldn't mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall."

Still, there may be some unresolved questions here. Considering that the work was done for hire by the Associated Press, it's possible that the AP might actually own the copyright on the photo -- and we've already seen that the AP has, at times, had a somewhat twisted view of copyright, especially when it comes to fair use. And, of course, with the Obama administration filling the Justice Department with big copyright supporters, perhaps the DoJ should begin investigating such infringement...

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..