The AP, Obama, & Referencingby
Shepard FaireyPosted March 26, 2009 | 12:18 PM (EST)
I'm sure a lot of people are wondering about my case with the AP
over the Obama HOPE poster. I can't talk about every aspect of the
case, but there are a few things I want to discuss and points I'd like
to make.
Most importantly, I am fighting the AP to protect the rights of all
artists, especially those with a desire to make art with social
commentary. This is about artistic freedom and basic rights of free
expression, which need to be available to all, whether they have money
and lawyers or not. I created the Obama image as a grassroots tool
solely to help Obama get elected president. The image worked due to
many complex variables. If I could do it all over again, I would not
change anything about the process, because that could change the
outcome. I am glad to endure legal headaches if that is the trade-off
for Obama being president.
No disrespect was intended to photographer Mannie Garcia, but I did
not think (and do not think) I needed permission to make an art piece
using a reference photo. From the beginning, I openly acknowledged
that my illustration of Obama was based on a reference photograph. But
the photograph is just a starting point. The illustration transforms
it aesthetically in its stylization and idealization, and the poster
has an altogether different purpose than the photograph does. The AP
photo I used as a reference, which I found out much later was taken by
Mannie Garcia, (which was actually this one,
not the one being circulated in the press) was a news photo that showed
George Clooney and Barack Obama attending a 2006 panel on the genocide
in Darfur. My Obama poster variations of "HOPE" and "PROGRESS" were
obviously not intended to report the news. I created them to generate
support for Obama; the point was to capture and synthesize the
qualities that made him a leader. The point of the poster is to
convince and inspire. It's a political statement. My Obama poster does
not compete with the intent of, or the market for the reference photo.
In fact, the argument has been made that the reference photo would have
faded into obscurity if it were not for my poster which became so
culturally pervasive. The Garcia photo is now more famous and valuable
than it ever would have been prior to the creation of my poster. With
this factor in mind, it is not surprising, that a gallery in NYC is now
selling the Garcia photo for $1,200 each. As I understand it, Garcia
himself did not even realize the poster was created referencing his
photo until it was pointed out to him a full year after the poster came
into existence. Mannie Garcia has stated in the press that he is an
Obama supporter pleased with the poster result.
I did not create the Obama poster for financial gain. The poster was
created to promote Obama for president, and the revenue from poster
sales was re-invested in more posters, flyers, stickers, etc.., and
donated to charity, including the Obama campaign. A free download of
the Obama image was available on my website, which should provide
further evidence of the desire to disseminate the image, not to benefit
financially.
Lastly, I m very saddened to see many people try to demean my Obama
poster as being "stolen" or that because I used a photo I "cheated".
As far as the idea of the image being "stolen", I would love to have
the clout to command portrait sittings from world leaders, but for me
and most artists out there, that is not an option. For lots of artists,
even licensing an image is out of the question financially. Should
artistic commentary featuring world leaders be stifled because of
copyright of the reference images even when the final artistic product
has new intent and meaning? Reference is critical to communication, and
in my opinion, reference as a part of social commentary should not be
stifled.
A writer asked me why I "didn't just draw Obama from my
imagination". My response was that I needed to make my image look like
Obama, who is not an imaginary character. I know few people who could
capture a convincing likeness of close friends or even their own family
members from their imagination or memory. I use my own family members
as models, taking my own photos of them to illustrate from - VIVI LA REVOLUCION and COMMANDA. Were Obama a member of my family I would have employed this technique.
Another suggestion someone made was "why not splice two or three
photos together and illustrate from that?" Well, though a direct match
would have been harder to find, with an image as popular as the HOPE
poster, internet sleuths would probably have found the references and
maybe I'd be facing two or three lawsuits. This leads to the next
question: is illustrating from a photograph "cheating"? I studied art,
illustration specifically, at one of the most prestigious art schools,
The Rhode Island School of Design. At RISD I was taught to draw from
life, to draw from photo references, and to appropriate and
re-contextualize imagery. All of these techniques had historical
precedents which I learned about. Here are some great examples of famous painters working from photo references, and not always their own photos.
I have respect for, and have frequently collaborated with,
photographers, but I do not think permission, or a collaboration is
warranted in every case where an artist works from a photo reference. I
collaborate with photographers because I WANT to, not because I believe
I HAVE to. Usually, when I work directly with a photographer as a
collaboration, I do so because I am building upon, rather than
transforming their original intent. Of course, as with everything, the
definition of transformation and fair use is somewhat subjective. I'm
an artist, not a lawyer, so I'd prefer to see more latitude for
creativity even though I do respect intellectual property.
This case has raised many issues, including the use of references in
art. Some of my earlier works have been attacked by some as
"plagiarism". I think reference is an important part of communication
and it has been common practice in the art world. When I flipped
through the Christie's auction house catalog from November 2008 I found
many pieces that are based on reference or appropriation. Most are
selling for over $100,000. Some are more clever than others, but these
are all works that are at auction being taken very seriously. Take a look.
If the AP wins their case, every Obama art (or any other politician)
that was based on a photo reference that was not licensed would be
rendered illegal. Here are just a few that were an important part of
the political discourse during this election cycle. I also think art
that is critical of leaders that neither the subject or the
photographer approve of need to be a legal form of expression. I think this Bush image is a perfect example.
This is a blog post that speaks more to the legal issues in the case. Thanks for reading.