Snapped Shot

An Israeli artist has taken a pile of YouTube videos, mashed them together, and produced a bloody masterpiece:



I wonder what the Copyright experts are going to say about this one. Obviously, if Kutiman has gotten permission from all of the various owners of these YouTube videos, there's no problem. Based on the description quoted by the JPost, I'm betting that's not the case—Which could open up some really interesting new questions headaches for fair use mavens everywhere.

For more excellence: Please visit Kutiman's official website.

(h/t Stable Hand)

Professor Peter Friedman (pictured, right, with apologies to Rohit Bothra) has some interesting new commentary on the Fairey case.

Of course, I'd ordinarily blockquote Professor Friedman here, but considering that this is a Copyright case, and I don't want to annoy him with yet more commentary appropriation, maybe a more non-cribbed analysis would be in order?

The good Professor is continuing down the basic line of thought that he's been saying from the very beginning of this case:—The Fairey Obama posters are creative works that are, in essence, fair uses of the original AP photograph. He brings some new ammunition to the table in this latest argument, though:

In a nutshell, the elements of the photograph copied (or "appropriated," to use Professor Friedman's often-used terminology) by Fairey—Namely, the angle and basic composition of the photograph—are not protected by Copyright law.

Again, I'm no expert on copyright law, and Peter certainly brings the usual case law-based punch to the discussion, but this would seem to me to bring up a very dangerous argument, as far as protecting the business of wire service photography goes. Saying that the arrangement, angle, and crop of a wire service photograph is not protected by Copyright law is, essentially, to say that the photograph itself is unprotected. Which, of course, could definitely put a pretty significant chill on the services that wire agencies provide.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing, since I'm still somewhat irate that the AP has used the Copyright bludgeon against me, but there are definitely some merits to such an argument. Continue reading »

Apparently, spray-painting one's iconic artwork (allegedly!) all over the private property of Boston is not the best way to make friends:

BOSTON (Reuters) - An artist who created an iconic red, white and blue portrait of President Barack Obama that appeared on thousands of posters and T-shirts was arrested in Boston on graffiti charges, police said on Saturday.

...

Police accuse Fairey of damaging property with graffiti in several locations and issued warrants for his arrest on January 24, Boston police spokesman James Kenneally said.

An arraignment is scheduled on Monday. If convicted on all charges, he faces up to three years in jail, Kenneally said.

My good friend Peter Friedman has outlined more reasons why he thinks the Associated Press will fail in their pursuit of Shep Fairey (the text in bold being added by me for clarity's sake):

(1) It's Transformative: As I’ve already made clear, I am convinced of that Fairey’s image sufficiently transforms the image of the AP photograph to be considered genuinely tranformative. Except for the fact that both are plainly images of Obama and that in both his expression and the tilt of his head are the same, the two images are entirely different. They are so different, in fact, that for many, many months no one, much less AP, was even able to identify the image from which Fairey started from. The physical changes Fairey has rendered to the image are plain. He has changed elements, and, through his painting style, simplified the elements significantly. In one image, you have all the complex information of a photo; in the other you have three colors arranged in a small number of blocks and lines. Finally, the photo could not possibly have become an iconic image of the presidential campaign. The Fairey poster did.

(2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The AP photo is a generic wire service photo. While photography is, of course, a creative endeavor, some images are more creative than others, and the AP photo of Obama is about as generic as they come. First, it’s an image of the most recognizable face in the world. Second, there is nothing special about it. This generic nature of the work is emphasized by the fact, as I pointed out above, that it took months before someone (not from AP), after scouring the internet on a search for the source of Fairey’s image, finally found the right one. AP had not even known its copyright image was part of a poster that was visible all over the country and in all the media.

(3) The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: In fact, this might be the factor that counts most seriously against Fairey, but even this factor is, I believe, a close call. As i explained above, about all Fairey’s image ultimately uses is the expression and the tilt of Obama’s head. The very nature of the image is changed from that of a photograph to that of a semi-abstract painting. The background is changed. The color of the tie (a generic tie on a generic suit) is changed. The circular Obama symbol on the suit’s lapel is added. And, of course, the word “HOPE” is added.

(4) The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market. This factor, which in the past has been referred to as the most important factor, isn’t even close. Fairey’s image has obviously had NO negative impact on the market for the AP photo. The only possible effect, a likely one, is that it has substantially increased the value of AP’s copyrighted image.

I agree with this outlook, for the most part. Fairey has definitely transformed something that would be an otherwise dull news photo from a press conference (sorry, my AP friends, but having great quantity of photos does not imply that most of them are quality) into something that's iconic—A putative work of art that that stands on its own merits.

There are some aspects of this particular case that are a bit troubling, however. Continue reading »

Speaking as someone who has been through this particular wringer before, I feel for the guy. Even if I don't buy into his particular form of "theft" art.

Details of the AP attack here—To make a long story short, "We own the photo that Fairey used, ergo Fairey owes us moolah."

May the best lawyers win! (Considering who Shepherd Fairey is, and how much money he's generated over the years, I'm sure he's got much more than a sporting chance.)

Previously: Red-on-red excitement, as Fairey is accused by art critics of "appropriating" (by which they mean: lifting) historical leftist art.

Update: Bob Owens points out that the case is not as clearly "fair use" as one would suspect.

Cue: D'ohbama picture?

Update: A defense of Shepherd Fairey, written by my good friend Peter Friedman.

Update: Allah weighs in.

Hey, I'm game. I've been burned by this torch before, but the more advice I read, the merrier I am.

And believe me, I'm darned merry.

I’ve been asked a few times by readers “What’s fair use and what’s illegal when using photography that’s not yours on a blog?” I can’t actually answer that question, because I’m not a lawyer, but I would like to help bloggers understand the best practices for using photography that doesn’t belong to them, so when I saw this “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video” (here) I thought I should create one for photography (and not 16 pages long), since it doesn’t already exist. There’s really no end in sight to the practice of bloggers writing about a photograph or a photographer and then posting a picture, so don’t you think it’s time we set down some guidelines on what acceptable and what’s not? I’m going to post the best practices guide on the url http://www.fairusephoto.com and I’d like it to represent what photographers and photo industry bloggers feel is acceptable. Here’s what I think:

Be sure to click on over (and visit here, whenever it's up and running) for the rest. This, along with Gabriel Malor's excellent piece, will continue to be Snapped Shot's set of "guiding principles."

Richard North over at EUReferendum explains the joyous new word "Bonto" thusly:

Bonto (Barak Obama—Not The One)

Don't you think it has that classic Anglican charm to it?

He also points out via e-mail that he intends to file no Copyright on the word, so you can definitely expect to see it over here constantly from here on out. I highly recommend the McCain camp work it into their vocabulary, too—Even if it's just for the fun of it.

Incidentally, it'd probably be a lot more enjoyable to use this word if I actually were busting a ©, a ®, or perhaps showing extreme disrespect towards somebody's ™...

When I heard Heart's classic song Barracuda at the convention last night, I got a nice, ironic tear in my eye. Because, you know, that's what Sarah Palin is called up in Alaska.

Being the copyright maverick that I am, that tear soon changed to tears of mirth, now that I discover that the ladies of Heart didn't really appreciate the gesture. (h/t Allah)

It's funny in the same way that Rush Limbaugh's theme song is—Leftist artists definitely make for funnier Republican sounders.

Anyway, I'm sure the good news in all of this is that the RNC has already budgeted for the copyright complaint ahead of time, and the whole matter will be settled in due haste.

After all, we don't want the court jesters going unpaid, now do we?

See-Also:

Jammie Wearing Fool, Jim Treacher, Beldar Blog

For the record: Since there seems to be a densoid or so out there, let me spell this out very clearly: I am not condoning copyright violations or other intellectual property theft here. I'm of the opinion that it's always a good idea to properly secure the rights to the work before using it, including paying any fees for the usage thereof, rather than "assuming" that it can be paid out in settlement afterwards. I just find the whole situation to be funny, given my personal experience in this type of thing.

What's that? You wanted to hear more about the AP's latest assault on the unwashed rabble that is the blogosphere?

Alright, relax already:

Fret not, fearless blogger—The Associated Press is not coming after you. They have been so busy pursuing a dastardly content thief that they forgot to mention that they weren’t trying to shut down the entire blogging world. This time.

Don’t you feel better already?

Be sure to read the rest over at Pajamas Media.

Brought to you by the comedy genius that is Sticky Notes:



This harkens back to the journalistic era of our grandfathers, which, incidentally, is the world in which the Associated Press resides to this very day!

The only thing that I can see that's missing is a "0"—Because that's how many APproved words I plan on quoting.

Blogger Patterico has noticed that the Associated Press lifted 157 words from his blog for one of its recent stories, without compensating him for the exclusive information he provided. This is comical, considering how the Associated Press is in the middle of a little snafu over a blog quoting their articles. Says Patterico:

Now, in a slightly ironic twist, the AP is taking content from a blog site. Namely, mine.

In a news item about the e-mail from Judge Kozinski’s wife that I posted on this site, an AP article lifted numerous passages.

I won't quote any more from Patterico's article, in case he's planning on charging $2.95 per word (just like the other AP). Be sure to hop on over and read the rest—And be sure to get as much of a laugh out of this as I am.

Thanks for the tip, Patterico! I am definitely appreciating the irony of this situation more and more.

See-also:

Ace of Spades HQ, The Jawa Report, doubleplusundead, The American Pundit, Evan Coyne Maloney's brain-terminal, Michelle Malkin, This Goes To 11 [Nigel—the invoice is on its way. ], Stop the ACLU, Powerline Blog, The Pirate's Cove, Below the Beltway, Confederate Yankee

The AP should hire Nelson Muntz to be their official spokesman.

Soccer Dad tipped me to this on Thursday, but I haven't had a chance to really sit down and go into detail on it until now:

Apparently, the legal department over at the Associated Press—Hi there, Priti!—has issued another legal threat to an online presence, this time targeting the news-commenting community the Drudge Retort.

The complaint itself has not yet been posted online (ours is here), but from the description provided by Rogers Cadenhead, who I suspect is the site's operator, the AP takes issue with brief summaries of their articles.

I've written about this in-depth over at Pajamas Media, so be sure to hop on over for the rest of this developing story!



Rush Limbaugh is discussing the Associated Press as we speak. Don't forget about we little guys in this story, Rush!

Updates: Daryl Lang, official blogger for Photographer's Daily News, has sounded off on this story. It's well worth a read, as always!

Also, PJM reader Mary points us to an online petition decrying the AP's bullying tactics. Hopefully, we'll all be able to get through to these AP corporate knuckleheads.

See-Also:

Shaun Kenney, Tidewater Musings, Gateway Pundit, Hot Air, Instapundit 2, Riehl World View, Free Republic, Shooting Star, Sweetness & Light, doubleplusundead (Foreigner rocks, incidentally), Fausta's Blog, Support Your Local Gunfighter, LGF, Boker Tov, Boulder!, Below the Beltway, Hyscience, BizzyBlog, Instapundit 3 4, Crystal Clear Conservative, PBS, Blacknell.net

Quasi-cross-posted over at NewsBusters.

You know that "good news" I was telling you about a few days ago?

I've been published by the kind folks over at Pajamas Media:

The AP threatened to sue Brian C. Ledbetter for reproducing their photos without authorization. But they didn’t ask permission before they grabbed Ashley Dupre’s pictures.

Be sure to click on over and read the rest. And then, when you wake up from your boredom-induced coma, be sure to check back over here for more fun and excitement!*

(* Fun and excitement may vary. Terms and conditions apply.)

Ooo, it looks like I got some Insty-linkage. Maybe that means it wasn't that boring! Continue reading »

Now this is an interesting development for the wire service that caters to terrorists first [Ed.:—I should've added ", the customer second." No bad joke goes unturned over here!]:

When a prostitute hired by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was identified Wednesday, news outlets eagerly published photos grabbed from her MySpace profile.

Can they get away with that?

Three attorneys who specialize in copyright law say media organizations are sailing in dangerous waters if they publish a personal snapshot without permission.

"Whoever took that picture owns that picture," says New York attorney Nancy Wolff. "It's either an infringement or they [the news outlets] have to make a fair use argument."

Wolff says the news organizations probably decided the risk of a lawsuit was low. They also probably considered competitive pressure as other sources published the same photos. "It's a fast business decision," Wolff says.

The fair use argument would be a thin one, attorneys say. Fair use cases consider factors such as whether the image has been transformed and whether publishing the image displaces the market for the image, according to New York attorney Joel Hecker.

In this case, Hecker says, the image was not transformed and it diminishes the market for the image rights.

Of course, in my experience, intellectual property experts are always going on about "dangerous waters"—though, also from my experience, they do seem to always have a point. After all, copyright law isn't exactly something that's set in stone.

Be sure to hop on over for the rest. And if you haven't read it yet, be sure to check out Daryl's excellent analysis of my recent situation. Continue reading »