Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case

from the fair-use-is-dying dept

While we're still not convinced you can trust the Associated Press's reporting on its own lawsuit with Shepard Fairey, the AP is now reporting that the judge in the case has indicated that the AP will almost certainly win, and that Fairey should give in and settle.

If you don't recall, the lawsuit is over Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama Hope poster. For over a year, no one knew what image it was based on, until a photojournalist pieced it together, and even got the photographer who took the original photograph to admit that he hadn't realized the poster was based on his photograph. That photographer, Mannie Garcia, even talked about how cool it was, and didn't seem upset by the issue at all, saying he hoped he might get a "signed litho" from Fairey. We wondered, at the time, if the AP, notoriously aggressive in its draconian interpretation on copyright law might get upset -- and, indeed, weeks later, the AP suddenly demanded money for the use of the photo:
barack-is-hope CLOONEY DARFUR
Of course, what made this ridiculous was that the AP had absolutely no idea that the poster was based on its own photo. It's difficult to think of a better definition of "transformative use" than that. Oh, and did we mention that the AP regularly used the poster as an image in its reporting? Fair use only goes one way according to the AP. Then, of course, to make matters more ridiculous, Mannie Garcia, the original photographer suddenly "forgot" how happy he was with the poster when it first came out and declared that he, too, wanted money.

It seemed like an open and shut case of fair use. The image was clearly transformative -- such that no one recognized where the original image came from for over a year, including both the original photographer and the company that claimed to hold the rights on it, despite both seeing the poster multiple times (and, in the case of the AP, using images of the poster in its own work). The idea that this poster harmed the market for the original image is laughable. The poster was also used for a non-profit political campaign, and Fairey donated any proceeds from the poster to charity. It practically screams fair use. This is what fair use was created to protect.

Ah, but then we found out that Fairey was an idiot. For no reason whatsoever, he went out and destroyed evidence in the case and lied to the court about what image he had used. It boggles the mind as to why he would do this. He had such a strong case, and in lying and destroying evidence he shot a huge hole through his credibility (and opened himself up to criminal liability).

Who knows what impact that actually had on the judge, but the fact that the judge is already claiming that the AP will clearly win this case in the end, suggests it certainly didn't help. And, because of that, we may end up with a ridiculous ruling on the books that an image that is about as fair use as you could possibly dream up is somehow not fair use.

The really amazing thing in all of this is that the AP itself doesn't seem to realize how much it relies on expansive fair use in its reporting. Even though the judge has more or less handicapped the case significantly in the AP's favor, the AP wants a clear ruling that the image is not fair use:
"Our primary objective is to make it clear to the world that The Associated Press is the copyright owner of that photograph and what he did was not fair use under copyright law," [AP lawyer] Dale Cendali said. "The Associated Press truly has been aggrieved here."
Wait, what?!? "Aggrieved"? How? Seriously. How has the AP lost anything here. This photo was a forgotten photo in the AP's vast archives before photojournalist Tom Gralish figured out where the original came from. Since then, however, that AP photo has received a ton of attention, all because of this silly stunt of a lawsuit. The only way in which the AP might actually be "aggrieved" is if it wins this abomination of copyright law, and stamps out one more clear case of fair use. Because it will almost certainly come back to haunt the AP. As a news publisher, it relies on expansive fair use to do its work. Taking that right away from others is an incredibly misguided move. That a judge has already made clear he's siding with the AP is troubling enough. That the AP still wants to push ahead is even worse.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, obama poster, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 1:22am

    Re: actually why am I wrong ?

    All you are doing there is saying "im right, you're wrong", so what supporting evidance, or trial rulings to support, you're "no it's not" statement.

    *sigh* I had assumed that as someone who purports to actually know about copyright law, you would be familiar with the *vast* library of decisions and case law showing that commercial use can and often still is fair use. But, if you must, here are two cases:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060519/035207.shtml
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 0090810/1913245833.shtml

    Furthermore, the fact that pretty much every news reporter (most of which are commercial entities) are given fair use rights suggests commercial fair use happens *all the time*.

    And a poster for "promotion" is for profit, it's profit for the person who copied it, and makes money by selling it, or promotes himself through his modification of someone elses work.

    Yikes. No. You are wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but entirely wrong. The poster was not for profit. All proceeds were donated to charity. And "promoting yourself" does not negate fair use by any amount. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as fair use.

    I'm sorry Darryl, but you have convinced me you don't know anything about fair use.

    He's using the image in full, it's not for critque, or educational purposes, and it does not full under the 'non-profit'.

    No, he's not using the image. He made a transformative work -- which is quite different. It is for non-profit purposes. It did not harm the market for the original image. It's fair use. Clearly.

    So on what grounds am I wrong ? if this case was put to this test for fair use, then it would fail.

    I like how you ignore the expert in fair use who said exactly the opposite. And you claim I don't support my arguments?


    Thats not good enough, and if you're going to interpret the law, it's best to be accurate, and base what you say on the actual laws, not what you would like them to be..


    Um. I am the one who based my position on the law, cited cases, gave examples, showed the four factor test and how it weighed in favor of fair use.

    All you have done is pretend the 4 factors say stuff that no court has *EVER* said.

    I'm sorry, Darryl, but you don't seem to know anything about copyright law when it comes to fair use.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.