Comments on: Announcing Celebrate Fair Use in Art and Craft Day

By: make money from my art

make money from my art — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:44:47 +0000

I would have to support this example as fair use…plus even though this article doesnt mention it-the original photographer did not have issue with the derived work

By: make money from my art

make money from my art — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:44:47 +0000

I would have to support this example as fair use…plus even though this article doesnt mention it-the original photographer did not have issue with the derived work

By: kristi

kristi — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:12:14 +0000

In stitchcraft, we're definitely grappling with these ideas every day. Constrained, as we are, by the human body, there's really only so many ways a sweater can go, only so many ways an armscye can be shaped. What constitutes “copying” and what constitutes original? Typically, I crunch my numbers from scratch. But what about designers that use software to aid in design? Or what if I use the geometry of someone else's armscye for a pattern I am working on?

For the non-yarny: If I read 10 recipes (or 100 recipes) for apple pie and take (what _in my view_ is) the best from each, have I truly created a new recipe? Can their ever be a recipe for apple pie that isn't merely derivative?

As to the Shepard Fairey thing — if the AP image were artistically/emotionally/politically “the same thing” as the Shepard Fairey image, then everyone would be running around with IT on the back of their cars and across their chests, and on their Facebook avatars, and clearly they are not.

By: kristi

kristi — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:42:50 +0000

Funny — I just clicked through to your brother's site — “I provide data analysis and high throughput data management for scientific applications.” sounds an awful lot like what Leo does… Great minds run in small circles…. or something like that.

By: plainsight

plainsight — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:14:15 +0000

Hi Amanda, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. I agree that
it's often hard to interpret the copyright rules, but I feel pretty strongly
in the case of Fairey that the work is transformative. I do, however agree
with you. He should have sought permission to use the photo. I see no reason
why he should not have. I read an interesting article today which quotes the
photographer as saying he didn't even recognize the work as being derived
from his photo, which certainly speaks to its transformative value:
http://tinyurl.com/d7vp93. I have to disagree with the idea that
transformative work dilutes the value of the original. I think in many cases
it can attract positive attention to the original. Think about hearing a
great parody before you knew an original song. Wouldn't you want to seek out
the original and hear it too?

Again--I appreciate your taking part in the discussion and I look forward to
hearing more of your thoughts.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:53:56 +0000

I think Fairey is a talented guy. That said, is his work really “transformative?” Those rules above are very broad and open to interpretation. If I apply one photoshop filter to another's photo, let's say that creates an effect similar to that of the fairey poster, is that “transformed?” If Fairey planned to make money off those images, which he has undoubtedly, he should have sought permission to use the photo. If that didn't work, he could have drawn his own headshot of Obama or found another photographer that would grant permission. Like I suggested earlier, if he wasn't making money on it, that's a totally different story. But we are entering an age where information, words, songs, music, designs, etc. are going to be our main means of production. If we open it up so that anyone can take another's creation and re-color/re-package it for profit, then we are diluting the value of everyone's work and putting our future in jeopardy.

By: plainsight

plainsight — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:49:53 +0000

Hi Jan--thanks so much for your thoughtful post. I'm sorry that you have had to waste creative energy defending your intellectual property. It's something that I do understand as a designer, but it doesn't mean I don't support fair use. I agree that the *transformative* factor of the work needs to be absolutely clear. My brother and I were chatting more about this and he said:

"One's use of a work should be truly transformative -- not just a few tweaks here and there, but a change that really makes it different enough from the original that it's not simply derivative. Make the work your own: just like the HOPE poster is Shepard Fairey's."

I agree with him--I wouldn't want my right to make transformative works restricted. If we as artists are going to retain our rights to fair use we need to exercise it properly. While what's fair may seem like it's in the eye of the beholder there is important copyright law to protect fair use.

A side note about Shepard Fairey--he did not profit from his use of the photograph. He donated any money he received to the Obama campaign. (Not so of the many 'bootleggers' of his image: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/04/ap-tries-t...)

Again, Jan, I'm so glad you took the time to comment. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Best,

Amy

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:51:35 +0000

I think the key to this whole post is that it isn't just a MINOR change; the point is to change the meaning or idea of the work as a whole, using the original work as a jumping off point.

By: Jan Pope

Jan Pope — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:26:13 +0000

You might want to think about what is really fair play. I am a professional fine arts artist and photographer. To me, personally, there is absolutely no fair play by anyone who uses any part of any of my images for anything that results in monetary gain for them. Personal use is a different thing of course.

But when I think about the long hours I put in developing a painting, do the initial studies and drawing, then the painting itself, I don't think anyone has to right to take any part of it for commercial use.

Currently, I have a piece that has been juried into several art shows. It was based on a photograph that I took and the whole design and execution is entirely my own. In less than two months since it began to be shown, numerous "look-alike" images have sprung up and one artist even went so far as to say that his intrepretation was the first. I had to prove the photograph was mine, the initial drawings and all the studies were mine. Fortunately some of my artist friends saw this work in early stages and could verify that it was my work. So what's fair about this? Nothing. And this kind of "transformative" work goes on all of the time and is extremely common.

You might feel the same way about some of your original knit or crochet designs if they showed up as someone else's work with maybe just a minor change.

Like a lot of other things, what's fair is in the eye of the beholder.