My Thoughts

I think that the Fairey case was just blown completely out of proportion.  If AP really thought that he made any money and didn't use it to make awareness for Obama more known then they are just fools.  He is a street artist who clearly doesn't care about the money from this, seeing that he has so many other images that are selling way better than this would have.  I believe that his use of it is fair use and the court was unfair.

Fined and Sentences

Summary:

So this article talks about the outcome of the case.  Fairey was sentenced to probation and got a big fine in addition to that.  This is the first article that talked about the fact that he tried to conceal evidence so that he would have a stronger case.  Fairey admitted that he was guilty along with saying he was ashamed of what he did.

Review:

Well trying to cover up the fact and hide stuff was a big mistake for Fairey.  I think that if he was completely honest then he could have been fine in the courts.  AP is a big company with a lot of money so they can afford the best lawyers and Fairey cannot.  However, if he was just honest I don’t think there would have been any dispute about the fact that the photo was fair use.

AP Blasts Obama

Summary:

This article seems to talk about the same photograph, however, they have the photograph and Fairey’s version of it right in front so you can actually see what they are talking about.  Apparently Fairey gained about $400,000 in sales for all the stuff with his image on it.  Fairey thinks that he completely change the image whereas AP thinks that he stole the photo and used a computerized “paint by numbers” to change it.

Review:

I think that they saying he used a computerized “paint by numbers” to their picture is a complete low blow.  He could have done it to any picture and then they would have no case at all. Think about taking this photo to a child, or anyone, and asking is this the same picture.  The pose is the same and it is taking from the same angle but it is a completely different photograph and therefore should have no court case.  It was for the cause and not for money and I don’t think that AP understands that.

The AP v. Shepherd Fairey

Summary:

This article, again, goes into detail about the case, however, this author thinks that Shepherd Fairey is actually infringing and not covered under fair use.  This article talks about revenue even though in the previous article there was no revenue to be had.  This author believes that AP or Garcia, the original photographer, has a claim and should collect the money from Fairey, if there is actually any to get.

Review:

I think that this is a little weird this author believes they have a case even if there is money to be gathered.  Fairey based his Obama poster on Garcia’s image and if you look at things from an archetypal standpoint everything is based on something else.  I don’t think that saying that Fairey based his poster on Garcia’s photograph     has a court case at all because based is such a loose term. 

AP/Shepherd Fairey Dispute

Summary:

This article, by Bailey, is about the Shepherd Fairey case.  Fairey created the Obama hope poster that by now everyone knows what it is.  Now, Fairey is being charged with copyright infringement because the original               photographer, Garcia, came forward and said that she took the picture.  However, Fairey thinks that this is unfair because he did not gain any money, and doesn’t seem to have any, from the photograph.  So if AP wants to get money from Fairey, it would be pretty hard because not only does he have none but his use of the photograph passes three of the four factors to decide if it is fair use or not.

Review:

I think that this is quite confusing.  I don’t think that Fairey is in the wrong because it seems to me that AP wants money.  Fairey doesn’t have a lot of money and he didn’t make any money using “their” photograph.  I think that this case falls under the fair use decision and that if there is no money to be made and it passes, technically, the four factors then it should be done and over with.

Fair Use Exception

Summary:

This article talks about the four factors to decide if a copyrighted image is covered under the fair use rules or not and the four factors are:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

All four factors are very important to decide whether the copyrighted image is considered fair use or not.  All four factors must be considered as well, no one can be the deciding factor.  The author then goes on to explain what each factor means in great detail so there is absolutely no confusion.

Review:

I think that this is helpful to make sure I know exactly what fair use is.  The article before this was the most basic explanation on how to make sure you are not using a copyrighted image unfairly.  This article goes into great detail about the four factors so that you can be absolutely positive that the photograph/image you want to use can be considered fair use.  As long as you consider all four factors you should be fine.