Logo heaven at Danziger Projects

I'm working on designing logos for a couple things right now, and in reading for my last post, I looked up the Danziger Projects in New York City. (They're the ones selling Garcia photos that the Obama Hope poster was based on, for $1200.) What they have that is even more interesting, is an exhibition of graphics and art from the Obama campaign, including a draft page of early-on possible logos. I maintain his campaign is one of the most brilliant marketing stunts of recent history. Seeing the preliminary sketches, as a designer, is awesome.

Shepard Fairey and the Obama poster

This flashed me right back to Langvardt's art law class.

Artist Shepard Fairey is the creator of the famous Obama "hope" poster. But the high-contrast, red and blue shadowed images were apparently based on an Associated Press photograph, taken by freelance photographer Mannie Garcia. (Additionally, there still seems to be some contention about who holds the copyright between Garcia and the AP, but we might suppose Garcia took the photo on a work-for-hire basis granting the AP the copyright). The parties sued and counter-sued, and I've google-news searched it and I can't find any results. So the question stands: did Fairey violate copyright law?

Fairey's poster is a derivative work, and only the owner of a copyright maintains the right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. Strike, he's out?

Fairey might argue "fair use." Fair use includes use "by reproduction...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research..." and is not considered copyright violation, meaning you can use someone else's work without permission and without paying them if you're using it for these purposes. Fairey might claim commentary, but this wouldn't be obvious without his explanation. These four factors must also be considered in determining if the use of a work is fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (Purpose of the original was to report the news, the purpose of the derivative was to influence a campaign and project an opinionated image of a candidate, giving the derivative some transformative boasting rights; that said, Fairey sold his posters and kept the money); (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (the photograph had been published); (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (derivative used one of the two significant features of the photograph); and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (use has definitely INCREASED, not damaged, the market value for the original work to $1,200 apiece for prints).

What do we think?

I might argue an additional consideration is that Fairey's Obama image is not so obviously derived from Garcia's photo, until you put them side by side. Obama is a consistent looking guy, generally lacking any drastic facial expressions - most photos of him look similar. A talented arist could render an image of him that looks seemingly identical to a thousand pictures of him. Garcia himself did not recognize Fairey's image as a derivative of his own. A Reuters photo by Jim Young was so similar, the photo was incorrectly reported as the source of the poster image, for some time. Fairey used only a portion of the original photograph; if the original was a zoom-in on Obama's face, it might be different.

Copyright infringment is qualified by three factors: (1) access to the original work can be proven (Fairey found the pic on google. Check.), (2) there was copying of the distinct expression of the original work, not just the idea, or style, (Maybe...AP/Garcia has a copyright on the composition of the photo, not on Obama's facial features and posture.) and (3) the substantial similarity to the original work is evident – that is, there is enough copying that it could not seem coincidental to an average observer (The buck stops here....) If I looked at Garcia's original photo, and all other Obama photos, and realized as I have that his facial expression is about the same, the copying of the head tilt in Fairey's poster would probably seem coincidental to me. It's not; Fairey did use Garcia's pic. But it took months for anyone to notice, and hours for image searchers to put the two together.

Arts supporters walk a fine line regarding which way we wish copyright law to fall - both sides are worthy of support: 1) you want intellectual property to be protected so artists can make a living from what they create, and have incentive to create, but 2) you don't want it too strict, so other artists can make new art from old art and not stiffle new work.

Illustrators

I've been thinking a lot about design recently, as I've been busy with my graphic work. Here are a couple of my absolute favorite designers' websites.

http://www.invisiblecreature.com

http://hughillustration.com

Contribution to a more peaceful world

Hunt and I didn't always agree, but I credit him with this good idea that I've held on to and have repeated for others: If we can expose people to art, to live performances, and thus to culture that they were previously unaware of, or misunderstood, and their new understanding causes them to connect with people different than themselves, in a new way, then we as arts administrators can make a difference; that is our contribution to a more peaceful world.

I thought of that recently when I read Tribeca Film Festival is hosting a second Tribeca film festival in Doha, the capital of Qatar, defined as an independent, progressive Arab state. "...The festival aims to bridge the east-west divide and showcase the most innovative films from the region." One leader emphasized developing a healthy climate of freedom of expression.

Sponsorship matchmaking

Now here's a good idea. This company is called Festival Media Corporation. They match big companies that want to engage in experiential marketing by being corporate sponsors of events (fairs, festivals, rodeos, etc.) with events whose audiences are appropriate for the market segment the company is trying to reach.

If I were running a festival today, I would want to be in these guys' database. They'd send the sponsors my way; I wouldn't have to hunt them down.

Facebook and copyright law

A friend directed me to this article about Facebook.

Facebook, apparently, can use your photos, videos, or any other content you upload on your profile in any way they want, even after you deactivate your account.

Now I remember in Prof. Langvardt's class, I learned a copyright on creative work is applied automatically when the work is created. No one can use your work without your permission, of course, even if it's just facebook photos and you haven't registered for a copyright. You are automatically protected.

So I wonder about the legal intersection of these two policies. I'm sure Facebook is a responsibly run company and they wouldn't have legal policies that weren't well researched, and they're so high profile, it'd be too high of a PR liability if they were to actually use a user's photos inappropriately. But out of principle, I bet their users aren't aware what they're giving up rights to.

Digital Graffiti

Now THIS is cool. This entirely white-painted Florida town makes its starkness useful for the Digital Graffiti Festival, the world's first outdoor projection art festival, where new works of art are projected onto the blank walls. The pictures are stunning. Organizers say that design, technology and architecture intertwine to create entirely new art forms. More info here.