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.
No comments:
Post a Comment