ArtBistro

Who would even want a poster of Obama, and an ugly one at that? Good grief, there a lot better subjects to draw from than that and if he had done that, he wouldn't be facing a lawsuit now. Obama does NOT offer hope to this nation. The fact that he's black does, because it represents that this is not a prejudice nation, but I have to wonder if "reverse" prejudice is what got him elected into office to begin with. I think that it's appropriate that this poster represents socialism with its style (even if it's not truly in the style of Marxist art)...because I believe that's exactly where Obama is leading this nation. And I find it sad that we, as a people, even want that or, at the very least, choose to blind ourselves to Obama's agenda.

It's too easy to inject attitudes about President Obama into a discussion which really isn't political. So let's keep it serious.

However, I do wonder if using that posterized style was a deliberate reference to the Soviet Style school of Marxist art from the 30's as earlier alleged. I like to think not as that only reinforces what a growing number of Americans perceive about Obama's politics.

Personally, I think it reminiscent of the KFC school of art and the portrait of Col. Sanders that decorates every box. Now there's a great American everybody can get behind. Except vegetarians. I doubt they would.

And before anybody even thinks it, I am NOT making any connection between the first African American in the White House and fried chicken. Because it's a racist bad joke. I know you were thinking it. Stop it. That wasn't my intent.

He and Michelle probably prefer Popeye's anyway....

Simon9

A slap on the wrist for lying will make him the "poster child" for not giving credit where credit is due...

As an artist myself, if a photo is legitimately a political poster, and said photo is used as a completely different peice, then they can legitly claim it as their own. But it's MUCH safer to drastically change or create something Different, instead of using a photo.

ANDY WARHOL DID NOT STEAL PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES? Sure he did Campbell soup to name one.

ok on another note this was done one of two ways (not sure which he used) 1 silk screen from a photo or 2 digital tri tone of one technique or another from a photo. There is a tiny possibility of someone painting that but I doubt it. I believe that it is either option 1 or 2. So the question then is to all you people can I make tee shirts, posters, license plates, stickers, etc. from your photos by one of these two methods? How would you feel? I know artists that this has happened to. The fact is the usage license of that photo is for sale, this artist could have and should have paid to license that photo plain and simple. I just last week found a photo that another photographer and I shot for a magazine article reused and picked up by aol. They had permission to quote the article but did not license the photo. We contacted them they did not wish to pay and took the photo down. This was an amicable solution. If you are a journalism photographer you make your tiny amount of money by news sources licensing your photos. That's how the business model is set up that's how it works. He could have paid a few hundred bucks up front and now it will cost him a portion of his earnings. Just ask yourself what if it was your photo. Now if it was painted then some of you are correct the law generally allows that but it's a fine line. There are other loop holes and this artist may sneak through one but the fact remains if you use someone else’s artwork and they can tell it was theirs you should get permission or license.

Just arguing with myself here. My apologies, my dialogue is fairly longwinded but I wanted to share my thoughts.
I can see how he changed it and how photo itself is not that unique. That said, you really aren't supposed to take editorial photos and use them for commercial purposes. Was Obama compensated in any way for his photo? I think not, and unless he gave anyone exclusive right to use his image in a commercial sense it shouldn't have been used that way.
However, the AP shouldn't have copyright complaint, as I understand, they are a non-profit that freely provides news/photos for other news outlets. And I might agree with Fairey if he had done one painting to express his political views. I would consider that a sort of abstracted but legitimate editorial use. An artist (jerk or otherwise) deserves freedom of expression. Nevertheless, he capitalized on those posters blatantly and clearly used them for profit. I personally think that nullifies any claims in the areas of freedom of expression.
In addition, I don't think fair use applies here. Fair use, as I understand, is a protection to use a small snippet of work for a larger work or for journalistic purposes. (He might also have been right to use it if it was some sort of parody of Obama.) I'd also like to add that genuine artists and businessmen take great care in making sure that they are allowed to use even those little snippets I spoke of. And yet, not all people realize those journalistic type rules. I would say drop the suit against him if he quit selling the posters once he realized he’d made a mistake. And I think that he realized that long ago.