Shepard Fairey’s Piracy: Rank Hypocrisy in the Art Community
by Stage RightEver wonder why ushers on Broadway become “Camera Nazis” whenever they spot a still camera or video camera in the house?
Ever wonder why you can’t just skip over those FBI warnings at the start of every DVD?
Ever wonder why “piracy” is always such a big issue for Hollywood when discussing our economic relationship with China?

It’s because writers, actors, directors and producers all live and die from royalties and residuals (payments for the repeated use of a copyright protected piece of intellectual property). I know most people don’t want to hear this, but being a writer, director or actor is usually not a great life. Until (or unless) you are lucky enough to make it big, it is fiscally challenging to say the least. So many actors who are not stars are lucky if they get one or two weeks’ worth of work in Hollywood per year. How does an actor survive on only two weeks’ pay? They don’t. But, one thing that helps them is they get paid for every subsequent use of the show they were on. Same with the writer and the other creative folks working on the show.
But, as you can imagine, if their work could be legally duplicated and distributed without any payment to them for their work, it would seriously disrupt the financial life of these artists. That is called copyright infringement, or piracy. The adherence to the fundamental belief that an artist’s work is protected, a writer’s words and stories are protected, and an actor’s image and performance is protected from duplication and piracy is fundamental to the economics of the artist’s business.
Enter Shepard Fairey.
Shepard Fairey is often referred to as a street artist. He made a name for himself by creating large posters and sticking them up by the thousands on public places. Others would call this vandalism, but I digress. He is heralded as the creator of the Obama “Hope” poster which is seen as a major influence in rallying devoted support to the Obama candidacy. The “Hope” poster conveyed in one image and in one word everything that the campaign wanted its most fervent allies to embrace, champion and (most importantly) to perpetuate to their friends who might not have been quite as fervent. The poster has been described as “the most efficacious American political illustration since ‘Uncle Sam Wants You.’” There is no denying its efficacy, even if its message doesn’t send a “thrill up your leg.” Only problem with it: It appears to be pirated.
I’m sure that this revelation has sent many of Fairey’s admirers into the same depression that George Harrison fans felt when it became clear that “My Sweet Lord” was just a rip-off of the Chiffons’ hit “He’s So Fine.” (Seriously, the fact that George Harrison may have ripped off another tune is one thing… but “He’s So Fine”???)
In February (a convenient two weeks after the inauguration), the AP announced a copyright infringement lawsuit against Fairey claiming that the image Fairey used was copyright protected intellectual property owned by the AP. Fairey’s response was two-fold: First, he claimed protection of his poster under the “Fair Use” guidelines of the copyright laws, and, second, it doesn’t really matter anyway because the AP is wrong; the image used as the basis for the poster was not the image AP claims ownership of, it was another photo. Any reasonable examination of the original AP-owned photo and Fairey’s poster would seem to favor the AP’s argument — and just this last Friday, Fairey not only admitted that the AP’s image was, in fact, the image he used, but he also admitted lying, submitting false images and destroying others during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. He still clings to his over-riding defense that his art and use of the photo is not piracy as it falls under the “Fair Use” guidelines.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV (although I think I would do a better job than some of those replacement actresses in the last season of “Boston Legal…” Geez!), so I am not here to argue about the “Fair Use” provisions in the copyright laws. But, I do suggest you read the provision and consider the issue for yourself.
OK, back to Hollywood and Broadway.
Those actors on stage during act one who see a red light in the house indicating a video camera is on them…. They will go right off stage and demand that the stage manager do something. The stage manager then tells the house manager, the house manager tells the usher, and THAT’s why you are being distracted by a seventy-year-old woman climbing over three rows of seats trying to wrestle a camcorder from an unsuspecting patron during “Phantom of the Opera.” It’s not because the red light is distracting them… it’s because they are protecting their performance and their image from being duplicated and distributed without their permission. It is their right. Just as it is the right of a professional photographer to protect their product from being copied, slightly altered and re-distributed without THEIR permission.
So imagine my surprise when I didn’t see one person from the Writers’ Guild or from SAG cheering on the AP. How could they not? The writer’s just endured an industry-crippling strike and the major issue was residual payments for use of their product on the Internet. Though Internet re-plays of “30 Rock” is not exactly the same as barely photo-shopping a photo and distributing it as art, but the core principal is the same: A work of art or entertainment must be protected from duplication or re-distribution or the entire copyright edifice will begin to crumble. Michael Moore was so thrilled with the WGA in their unwavering position on the webcasts, that he gushed to the LA Times:
“This is an historic moment for labor in this country, …To have the writers union stand up like we did, not give back a single thing and make them give — it was a really great moment to sit in there and listen to everything.”
So why are Moore and other left-leaning artists, writers and directors relatively silent on the Fairey issue? You would think that the protection of intellectual property is something they would champion.
The question answers itself. Fairey is an artist who uses his art for the right reasons. He helped get Obama elected. He made a great poster in support of same-sex marriage. He gave President Bush fangs and a trickle of blood down his chin in another poster. “So what if he broke copyright laws… his art is effective, he’s cool, and he thinks like us, we will look away.” I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning.
Before you lefties start flaming the comments with claims that Fairey made no money off of the poster so there is no infringement… understand one thing: Whether Fairey made money or not, it doesn’t matter with regard to copyright laws. I can’t put on a production of “Wicked” at the local high school gym as long as I don’t charge any money for tickets. I can’t make copies of the DVD of “Titanic” and start handing them out for free on the street. You MUST know that, right?
And by the way, to suggest that Mr. Fairey has not benefitted from his association with the “Hope” poster is disingenuous at best. Mr. Fairey is currently enjoying the honor of having a special exhibition of his work at the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. A hand-crafted collage version of the “Hope” poster is now in the Smithsonian. If you think that the sale of future Fairey works will not be influenced by this, you don’t understand market economics. Also, just because Fairey might not have made any direct income from the poster, does not mean that someone didn’t make any, most notably, the Obama campaign and transition teams.
In all of my searching for some sort of outcry over Fairey’s use of protected work for his poster, I did find an interesting trend. It seems that in the past, one of the champions of copyright protection with regard to these types of images and artwork has been none other than Shepard Fairey. You see, before “Hope” there was “Obey,” Fairey’s breakout poster in which he used a photo of wrestler Andre the Giant, modified the image, and affixed the word “Obey.” The iconic image was adapted recently by artist Baxter Orr. Orr gave Andre a SARS surgical mask and gave it the caption, “Protect Yourself.” What did “Fair-use Fairey” do? He sued Baxter Orr. Orr cries hypocrisy: “”It’s ridiculous for someone who built their empire on appropriating other people’s images,” he said. “Obey Giant has become like Tide and Coca-Cola.” Fairey’s gentlemanly response? He called Orr a “parasite.”
But this is only Fairey’s protection of his famous “Obey” icon, right? He doesn’t care what people do with his “Hope” poster… that was all done for free and to benefit the Obama campaign, right? Well…. It seems that many of the posters that got distributed to Obama supporters at events were found on eBay auctions (those damn capitalists) and Mr. Fairey was not amused. He demanded that eBay take down the auctions, his website called the people engaged in the sale as “greedy” and he subsequently opened up a page for the exclusive sale of signed “Hope” posters.
Any director, writer or actor interested in making long-term money in the entertainment industry should be calling Fairey what he is: A plagiarist. But they won’t. And they won’t protest for an end to the Afghan war even though casualties are mounting under President Obama’s watch. And they won’t claim President Obama is taking away their freedoms even though he extended President Bush’s declaration of national emergency this past September 10th (something the left continually criticized President Bush for).
One wonders what fault, if any, the left will find in this President or his loyal supporters like Fairey.




Subscribe via RSS
44 Comments
As observed many, many times, in many contexts: Behind every apparent double standard, lies an unconfessed single standard. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Kind of like the Polanski deal.
"But he is a great artist!"
It depends. Do you think the left would find fault in Obama if he kicked a puppy while wearing a suit made out of the flesh of newborns?
Who am I kidding? They would likely blame the dog and call the suit fashion foward.
I'm looking for the poster that says HOPELESS…………across the bottom of Mr.Fairey's hijacked image.
You could make a bundle selling those
Of course they won't find fault or hold this president accountable,they have no morals.We'll have to do it for them
What amazes me is the left is SO keen on pointing fingers at the right and their "turning the other cheek" when a Republican does something they shouldn't be doing, that they forget(?) that they do it to themselves too…. Gotta love the hypocritical left.
It appears that Fairey's plagiarism is far more extensive than the 'Hope' poster: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm. ..bruce..
Once again: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
The blog software auto-included my closing period ('.') with the link in my first comment. ..bruce..
[...] Shepard Fairey’s Piracy: Rank Hypocrisy in the Art Community This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
It appears Mr Fairey doesn't have an original thought.
Bruce… that is a fantastic find.
Now, I may be a bit niave, but I don't understand what "Obey" means… Obey what? who?
I already now that Fairey, obviously photoshops and traces everything.. But I don't get his "Obey" theme.
I don't really care what happens to Shepard Fairey as a result of this blatant copyright infringement. My victory is in knowing the poster is as fraudulent as the man, his ideals, and the "Hope" that it represents.
[...] Continued here: Shepard Fairey’s Piracy: Rank Hypocrisy in the Art Community [...]
Court Declares Obama "Hope" Poster "Fraud," "One Humongous Metaphor": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/court-declare...
That's wild. How many counts of copyright infringement are we looking at here?
This is hypocrisy on an epic scale. Thanks for pointing this out bfwebster. If this is all it takes to be one of the great modern propagandists of our time, then I think I just found my new career. I better get busy.
This Fairey guy's done a lot of neat paintings. There was this was one picture of this italian looking woman with long black hair. It was hard to tell if she was smiling or what, you know. And then he painted this one out of lot of little bitty dots of these people hanging out near a pond. This one woman is holding an umbrella and has a huge butt. I asked him how long it took to paint them- he said a couple of days. If you don't like this guy you must be racist.
wow- an Obambot is a liar, a thief and is unrepentant…
What a surprise! We are shocked! Shocked!!
This rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper…
I'm sorry but are you surprised by this? The guys previous claim to fame was the Andre the Giant has a Posse sticker. He took someone elses photo then as well and just added type.
This is called theft last time I checked. The same theft Andy Warhol did with other people photos as well, same as Roy Lictenstein who stole a Russ Heath comic panel and called it art. It's theft plain and simple.
The problem starts in art school, these people did not develop enough internal skill to make great art themselves. So they steal others art, modify it only slightly and then convince a even less talented art critic to herald it as art..
Appropriation is a part of his art and his 20-year career, and is no surprise to fans and street art historians, that is part of what makes it interesting. Whether he should or should not pay royalties, is indeed a matter for courts to decide, and pundits to debate. But just because a photo is utilized in a work of art does not mean the new work of art has the same meaning or affect as the original photo. The new art is still valid on its own merits, the question is what the appropriate compensation to the inspiration should be.
Intellectual property is a fraud and the sooner we do away with it, the better off we will be as a nation. I am not an Obama supporter. I don't care for hippie artists as people. But the "Hope" guy did nothing wrong. The AP photographer still has his photograph. Does he claim to own the copy of the image that is burned into my brain? If he does, how can he control that image? He can't, that is what makes IP such a fraud. If you don't want something copied or recorded, don't let it be made public. Simple as that.
A lot of disagreement on the issue of Intellectual Property. First Copywrite Laws can only Protect the medium on which the Intellectual Property is transmitted. A Record or Album can be copywrited. The Lurics and Music, which is written down can be Copy Writed, but the performance it self cannot be copywrited and never was. When people started Changing Music to MP3 files and Sharing them it was illegal not because of copywrite infringement persay it was illegal because the activity was deemed an attempt to avoid copywrite protections. MP3 files in no way resemble the original material which is the medium and files of the original. The courts held that the activity of converting and sharing files itself was an attempt to circumvent copywrite protections.
A Play can be copy writed. The use of the script of a play can be copy writed but is it even possible to copywrite something that can never be duplicated? A performance is a one time thing. Every performance will be different in some way to the next. A different person performing the same piece will be markedly different. In reality the only things that really have copy write protections are things that can be duplicated such as words, film, tape, cd's, dvd's, etc. It isthe medium which can be duplicated and not the performance that was captured. There is no way to copywrite that which cannot be duplicated.
Performers, Actors, Musicians do need protections and are paid royalties or residuals but not because of copy writes but because of contracts made with the copy write holders. How do you protect something which was never real? A performance is etherial and has no real substance. Copy writes can only protect that which is real to begin with. I know I will get a lot of disagreement but I am not trying to say that Piracy or Copy Write Infringment should be Tolerated in any way. I just want to try and bring some clarity to a cloudy subject. The legal profession and Judges disagree with me on many points but that way also leads not to protections but to tyranny. If a performance can be copywritten then anything can be copywritten and nothing new will ever come again.
How can you copyright Obama's head with a frown and a faraway look? Does the AP have ownership of any work of art that shows Obama looking slightly grumpy while looking off into the distance? Are artists really going to have to pay anyone or thing that vaguely resembles any element that appears in their work of art? A Photoshopped drawing isn't a photograph, no matter whether there is a resemblance or not. All art is inspired by something the artist has seen. Photographs are merely reproductions of real things (that many people besides the AP photographer may have seen). The intellectual property fascists are becoming so over-the-top they risk the complete elimination of all protections as an equal and opposite reaction.
What a state-controlled nightmare is evolving in this country. And what a bunch of sue-happy crybabies Americans have become. Cowboy up, America.
Not only that, they would all be scouring stores for newborn flesh suits so they could keep up with the cool kids.
So how's that hopey, changey thing going for you?????
The legal case as to whether Fairey stole AP's photo is one thing – but I assure you as a legal secretary for nearly a quarter of a century that knowingly lying in deposition and submitting false images in court pleadings is a BIG no no. This isn't something you can talk your way out of, my friends. What Fairey has done is a serious, serious offense that entails some serious jail time.
The ironic thing is Fairey probably could have just called AP Photo in New York and asked for reproduction rights — especially if he showed them the finished pro-Obama poster in advance — and gotten approval for its use at a minimal fee. It wasn't as if Shep was trying to do anything the news agency would have been adverse to, like a pro-George W. Bush offering (and the suit itself was as much about the AP trying to claim some credit for the origination of the haigographic poster as it was about the agency suddenly getting the vapors about anyone using their images without permission. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but the odds are if Obama had bombed out last November and the poster had been a failure the suit never would have been filed.)
Stage, I understand and support your point about creative types needing to protect their work to make a living. And I do think that Fairey is a jerk and a liar.
But, I do respectfully disagree on this suit. I would agree with them if he started selling the same photo on shirts or something, but I think that the painting is so much more than the photo that I would not call it infringement — not to mention that I do believe that images of political figures fall into the fair use doctrine or their use should be free under the First Amendment.
Moreover, I think that the image is too generic be warrant protection for anything except a direct copy. They are essentially arguing that they can copyright Obama's image with his head cocked. Maybe if there was background or something included, but not just the man. The AP's position reminds me advertisers who try to copyright things like the word "Love" written in a particular color. And I simply don't accept that.
Stage Right nailed it… Steal for the "right" cause (in this case, helping to elect Obama), and you become a hero. We all know what the Leftist would be doing if Fairey had been Conservative and did the same thing with a McCain photo to help elect him. The Left would be screaming bloody murder and demanding that Fairey be frog-marched to the nearest prison immediately.
Amazing. We should stop referring to him as an artist and start calling him what he is – a copyist.
This is completely consistent with everything the leftists do. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
You've coined the new standard for the current Obama Administration: " I love the smell of cognitive dissonance int the morning." Great Scott, that's good!
from Churchill's description of Russia as " a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" to a President who is "a fraud, wrapped in a lie, inside a scam, hidden by deception, perpetrating a hoax, playing a con, surrounded by crooks, lauded by sycophants………………………….."
i've heard that argument a lot over the years, but never once from anybody who has created anything worth protecting. only from those who think everyone is entitled to the fruits of another's labor for free.
"and gotten approval for its use at a minimal fee." are you kidding? the AP would have ordered their hottest secretary to give him a Lewinsky…
Tell it to "Weird Al" Yankovic (and read the laws concerning political free speech and satire yourself, Mr. Sees-pirates-everywhere).
[...] graffiti in the 90s that transformed pop culture. Among other beautiful losers, Harmony Korine and Shepard Fairey continue to make controversial headlines and art. The DIY Film Festival began in 2002 as part of [...]
As an artist, I've followed this topic for some time. First of all, every illustrator in the business, uses photographic images as reference material for their work. Sometimes literally copying a portion of the photographic image and simplifying it, moving it combining the art and so on. It has been going on for fifty years. And even though likenesses of Cambell Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe were painted on canvas, the likenesses were taken from photographs. The copyright law states that a work of art has to be substantially original.
Now I don't agree with Fairey's politics, but I do know this. The image of Obama was a standard press shot. The photographer was well compensated for the picture. It was on every Time Magazine in the world. It wasn't precious and terribly original. The photog snapped the shutter at a happy moment.
Fairey took the image, using knives, scissors, glue and spray paint, created an original piece of art which was substantially changed from the photo. The gesture was the same, but everything else was changed. The colors, the contrast, line and tone. He added type, he created gradations out of closely aligned lines, and added a light blue hue along with bright red to Obama's face. If what Shepard's work was so easy, and was clearly a rip-off then the photographer should be able to show how his work was entirely his own. Which of course it was not. There are literally thousand and thousands of photos taken of everything known to man every day. The law states only that a piece of art must be substantially original. In my opinion,Shepard added enough content to the original photo to meet that standard.
As far as I'm concerned the photographer, after being well compensated for his campaign pic, is looking for a bonus on the back of the guy who spent hours and weeks cutting up stencils, designing the piece, hand painting it on his hands and knees in his studio, then scanning it into a high res piece of art. And yes Fairey, should have stood up for what he did (because he did nothing wrong), rather than make up stories that it was really a different picture blah blah blah.
Plz understand copyright…
If an artist, or anyone for that matter, makes a painting based on an existing photo it´s not a crime because the photo used are not part of the final product. For example, if a filmmaker makes a parody on someones work they don´t have to pay any money to the original creator of the non-parody script. Did you say work in showbiz? A copy is a copy and a work based on other work is something else. Read books.
[...] Art In America: Painting Gets Pulled From White House Following Furor Stage Right, Big Hollywood: Shepard Fairey’s Piracy: Rank Hypocrisy in the Art Community Back Of The Canvas: Matisse’s l’Escargot vs. Alma Thomas’ [...]
[...] View the entire post by clicking here [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.