|
|
Post by ally on Feb 4, 2009 19:45:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Feb 4, 2009 20:08:13 GMT -8
Yeh this is pretty ridiculous, and funny how this is the first time they have brought it up. So AP waited until the image made its way around the world, was sold as prints, covers of magazines and now Smithsonian. So once they are assured there it money to gain, then they come prowling around.
As far as I know, from working alongside a copyright lawyer for many years, Fairey could get by with the work being an artists rendition of the original work.
|
|
|
|
Post by evilchoy on Feb 4, 2009 20:17:10 GMT -8
So Manny doesn't deserve any love for his picture or any credit.... I am a little perplexed about why shepard would go out of his way and forge relationship with some photographers and other he just samples.
Come on... Why the AP cause they have lawyers on retainer and staff who are probably bored suing perez hilton. Manny is smart to ask for the AP support. All he probably wants is the same love he is giving highbrows friend and glen Friedman.
I do hate it when multiple threads start on the same subject I wish it could all stay under the Fairey one
|
|
|
|
Post by ally on Feb 5, 2009 1:30:48 GMT -8
i didnt want to clog that thread with tons of replies in regards to the ap issue...
|
|
|
|
Post by juggernut3 on Feb 5, 2009 9:29:18 GMT -8
Creep... I was thinking the same thing. Why would they wait until now after the snowball became bigger than the mountain to say anything. Can we say: entrapment...?
Choy... you have a point that Manny deserves credit. I actually don't think Manny is really trying to sue and is using AP's lawyers to do this. Manny was actually an AP temp for a few weeks. So AP actually owns the rights if they have basic contracts retaining the rights to "all images/inventions created while working under xxx company while employed." So it's actually AP who is trying to cash in on this.
IMHO AP has no chance of winning because Shep actually took precautions to prevent this situation from hurting him. (e.g. donating the Hope image to the campaign.) I'll explain later just in case AP's lawyers are scanning this.
That and the fact that Obama's camp/legal team has been pulled into this fray cause they AP is dumb enough to also take on the campaign at the same time...
|
|
|
|
Post by evilchoy on Feb 5, 2009 9:57:23 GMT -8
regardless manny is still a photographer and retains some rights to the image at hand depending on his contract. Donating it to any organization is a shady loophole....The AP is also very anti the use of its words or images in political campaigns in point with your earlier comment about timing any earlier AP would be labeled as Anti-Obama and also now that shepards stock has gone up ten fold they probably want to make a deal so that no more of the images are used, set an example for future use of their property, and at least show support the hundreds of other photographers in their agency. At the end of the day Shepard and the obey team will not have to shell out any money, he will acknowledge his support to freelance workers aka temp, ( what a dirty word), and blah. blah blah. www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#6"All requests for republication of AP material must be in writing, clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the copy will be used. All republished material must carry AP credit. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all permission is given for one-time use only. No political candidate, political party, political action committee, polemical organization, or any group formed for partisan purpose may use AP copy in any publication. There may be a fee for reprint use." |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Feb 5, 2009 11:48:18 GMT -8
Here's a bit of commentary on this topic which I happen to agree with: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/5/12513/37324/244/693352Here's a selection of their argument... "The case that is most on point here is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.: "I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."How the AP can argue that use of this picture hasn't been transformed by Fairey to offer "new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" is beyond comprehension. Perhaps they are feeling the pinch of newspapers abandoning their product -- they've been dropped by Dow Jones, Tribune, NY Daily News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Spokane Spokesman-Review, while newspapers in New York and Ohio have banded together to create competing networks to rid themselves of the AP blight. Throw in the newspapers that are simply going out of business, and apparently the AP's new business model is to legally intimidate artists basing their artwork at least partly on AP images." |
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on Feb 5, 2009 15:42:33 GMT -8
|
|
