Here is a comprehensive student guide to copyright law that's worth reviewing.
But there is an important exception that journalists, in particular, need to know about. This exception to the general copyright rule is known as the Fair Use Doctrine. It allows the use of limited amounts of copyrighted works for important purposes like news reporting, critiques and education -- as long as the fair use does not significantly cut into the commercial value of the original copyrighted work.
So, for example, it's permissible for a student newspaper to reprint a short passage from a new book to accompany a book review, or to include sample lyrics from a new album to accompany an album review. Or it's generally considered acceptable to reprint a small photo of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, but it probably would not be considered acceptable to reproduce that photo to a very large size for greater impact.
There are four key factors that determine fair use:
1) The purpose of your use (Is your purpose for using the item for teaching or news reporting? Or to make money off of it?)
2) The nature of your work (Is the work itself factual or highly creative like someone's copyrighted fiction. The more creative and original the work is, the more necessary it is to be sure you're only using a tiny amount for the purpose of critiquing, for example.)
3) The amount you're using (A small quantity of the original work is usually acceptable.)
4) The effect of your use on the market (Your use of this item will have no major effect on the market.)
Still, what constitutes "fair use" isn't always clear. Click here to read an interesting article about a copyright legal battle revolving around President Obama's image.
Flickr Creative Commons image by MikeBlogs
I think there's no case for the AP here. It's exactly like the Warhol soup can. It's a separate piece of artwork, and in actuality doesn't even fully look like the picture it's based off of. In my opinion, it's the AP who want a cut and are sour that they aren't getting any money. Or, better yet, they're bitter that they didn't think to hire this Fairey guy themselves. Well, tough, AP guys. It's art, it's exempt.
ReplyDeleteI strongly object to the AP claiming copyright infringement for their unremarkable photo. Out copyright laws are terribly antiquated and need to come up to date with our digital world. Nevertheless, I think it is terrific that Ms. Waldsmith is bringing fair use to our attention. I am truly shocked at how casually teachers and students violate copyright-- teachers who freely make copies of books and articles for their students and students who lift music and text and plug it into their own presentations. A journalist who had such loose ethic would be heading toward a serious smackdown.
ReplyDeleteAP has no right to consider Shepard Fairey's art as their art. He made the picture based off of their photo; its not like he took a picture of their picture and called it his work. It Fairey's work, not theirs. Its like Andy Warhol's paiting of the soup cans; he made a paiting of the cans, but it is still his work. AP needs to give it up - its Fairey's work and it doesn't belong to them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think AP should try and take credit for Shepard Fairey's work. Fairey recreated the picture so it wasn't a "photograph of a photograph." I think Fairey has the right to keep this picture credited as his own.
ReplyDeleteAP should not receive credit for Fairey's Obama image and they should not even desire credit because that picture is not a production of their work. They did not create Fairey's image. He did and he added so many other details to it that were not AP's ideas. AP's original image does not look anything like Fairey's picture. The only thing that resembles it is the outline of Obama's face and facial features. AP's image was only used as a basis. Fairey's image is a work of art, AP's is just a portrait of a man. Perhaps, this realization is the cause of AP's anger. It is a reasonable conclusion. It is unreasonable for AP to desire credit for another man's genius.
ReplyDeleteI don't think AP should recieve credit for Fairey's Obama picture. I think the AP is just trying to take advantage of Fairey's success. Although the picture is based off of the AP's photo, it isn't a carbon copy of the photo. AP just took a photo, but Fairey created a creative, and impressive image that is a lot different then the original photograph. Fairey didn't copy the photo, he just used it as an outline.
ReplyDeleteI do not think AP should be able to copyright Obama's image. Fairey is responsible for and created the picture, not AP. He deserves recognition because he used his own artistic talent to redesign the picture so that it hardly resembled the original picture. Additionally, the portrait of a famous president should not be able to be copyrighted. Fairey deserves credit for his own work.
ReplyDeleteAP should not receive credit for this image. It seems that the AP only wants credit for this image because it became so iconic while President Obama was running for the presidency. This makes it look like the AP just wants to be achknowledged for their photography. However, Fairey made a completey new image out of this photograph as an artist. The new image is work entirely from Fairey, not the AP. People should see that the new, iconic picture was created by Fairey. This means that people should see that the original photo was not from Fairey, but from the AP.
ReplyDeleteThis story reminded me over the law suit Taylor Swift attached herself to regarding a small sports bar in the middle of nowhere playing her songs for karaoke and so on... Maybe I'm just obsessed with Taylor Swift but that's what popped into my mind. I agree with the previous comments above, especially the one that made the comparison to Andy Warhol's work with icons such as Marilyn Monroe. The AP can't claim any possession of the "restored" image because they only supplied the basis for the artwork itself. It could have been hand drawn from the picture- what do we know?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that AP has any copyright claim over this image. Fairy didn't intend to make money from it, and didn't even receive any profits that had been made off of it. I can see how they would be upset, but I think they should be happy to have contributed to something that has been a huge part of our country's history.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that AP can claim copyright on this image. True, the original picture does belong to the Ap, but Fairey's art is simply an interpretation of Obama. I think that the AP might be trying to take advantage of Copyright laws, and use them in a way that isn't fair. The rights of his work should reamin in his possession.
ReplyDelete