the AP should be ashamed to attack an artist. Yes theyre from the same mold but theyre so different that the similarities shouldnt cost the artist 6 months in prison. I wonder if the photographer who took the photo cares that it became a painting or if they were proud that it became so famous and its just AP fighting agaist an artist who got caught up in the excitement of the campaign.

This headline is misleading. He's not facing jail time for the poster, he's facing jail time for knowingly falsifying documents related to a legal proceeding.

This is insane. What ever happened to fair use? If you are painting a real person what else are you supposed to use for reference? The world has gone copyright crazy.

6 months in Jail, Couldnt our tax dollars be used on something else.

Why should the photographer give up his work to Fairey? Fair use would have been painting Obama from scratch not from using someone else's work for free. That is simply stealing. Fairey knew it was wrong hence the falsifying documents. Thank goodness the photographer is covered by copyright. Just because you find something on the internet doesn't mean it is yours to use.

If yall want to support Fairey's legal defense fund you can go to your local mall and buy OBEY Giant apparel. Street artists have to eat too but I think Shepard's ego clouded his judgment on this one.

when was he supposed to get obama to sit for this from scratch painting?

yes...how else do you paint/draw/whatever a portrait of the president?! It's not like you are going to get one-on-one time with him to do this. If I were in the artist's shoes, I would have also referred to a media photo. DUH. As for falsifying documents...I wonder why he was trying to hide the fact that he used an AP image? were they trying to make him pay beaucoup bucks for the use? Since when do artists have tons of money...? I just don't get it. He's basically a small-business owner, why is he being dumped on?

Why should the photographer give up his work to Fairey?
Why should Obama allow himself to be photographed without a model disclosure?

I'd say, unless they've a model disclosure, NOBODY can make any money over a picture, they cannot sue anyone, or have any more rights after the photo has been processed to the point of being distinctly different.

Exhibit A: Obviously the artist took artistic liberties when recreating Obama's facial and clothing characteristics. You can't see the cast shadow on the right nostril, and neither the expression line right under from the photograph. Also, the right side of his upper lip is higher than the photographed version. The tie is has a different knot and is a different color. Speaking of colors, the ENTIRE design is of different colors from the alleged "original". In other words, it's changed enough to where it's become an entirely different ORIGINAL work of art.

IF the photographer had taken his photograph to add to the campaign, they would've rejected it; because it didn't fit the aesthetic they were looking for. Therefore, it wouldn't cut into his profits for the picture, BECAUSE it's not Shepard Fairey's work.

The artist should have been protected in regards to allegations of copyright infringement for this work. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with his subsequent charge regarding contempt for attempting to falsify documents.

Just want to reiterate the fact that this blog post's headline is misleading- Fairey's facing jail time for knowingly falsifying documents related to a legal proceeding. The copyright issue was settled out of court: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-associated-press-shepard-fairey-reach-settlement-in-fair-use-lawsui/

Artists are required to request permission when using a copyrighted image as source material. Remember all the "sampling" cases you hear about in music. Generally you pay a usage fee, and it can be scaled against the number or reproductions made (e.g. you would pay less for one painting than for 100,000 posters). It was a real oversight on someone's part not to take care of the copyright for the image prior to using it in a presidential campaign. And yeah, if you get sued after the fact, you will pay much, much more. Typically 10 to 20 times what you might have negotiated.

If you make a request and the copyright owner does not respond (often happens), you have some grounds for using the image anyway. Owning a copyright implies that you will defend it, or else you lose it.

I'm fairly certain any image on Associated Press is available to license for a standard fee - that's how the AP works. He should have taken care of it before he got famous/rich off the image.

@ Lady J and Heela,

Um, you ASK FOR PERMISSION! It's as simple as that.
If it doesn't belong to you... and you plan to use it for commercial gain (and even if that's not your intent) you ask for permission to use it. You don't even have to study Communications Law to know that... most of us learned that in Kindergarten.

A few years back, I wanted to make postcards as invitations to my Dad's 75th Birthday Surprise party. I wanted a photo of a cowboy, but an unidentifiable cowboy... and I found a sweet shot of a Cowboy riding into the sunset on Google images.
It took a few more steps to track down the photographer (but not many) and I emailed him and asked for permission to use it, and sent him my mockup for the postcard.... even though we were only sending it to friends and family. The photog was surprised to learn that his photo (professional work) was somehow in the public domain and didn't even understand how I found the photo, (I'm thinking he was an older guy.) but because I was kind enough to ask for permission, he was gracious enough to give it.

That is what decent people do!
Now, would the photographer EVER have found out about my postcard invitations? Not likely.
But. as a journalist and photographer myself... I knew enough to do the right thing.

If he had just been honest from the start he would have ultimately gotten off without much trouble, this isn't a situation where we debate if he should have been able to use the original artwork or not, the conversation should be about how he did something stupid that made things worse for himself. Shepard Fairey has always been wildly overrated anyhow.

Also, I'm fairly certain he's one of the rare artists that is rolling in money.

He had no right to use that photo without asking. I'm an illustration student, and you have to be very careful with using references. Unless you get permission, if you're using a photo reference to draw/paint someone, you have to use several images to create your own piece, and it should not be recognizable as a copy of any one photo/drawing. He obviously knew better if he went so far as to falsify documents to cover his tracks, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by simply writing the photographer for permission or altering the image beyond recognition in the first place.

I support the artist-- but not the falsifying of documents. Using a photo for reference is a gray area but out-and-out lying; well... that's not so gray.

It's called art it's not fair to be attacked for simply being an artist!

Using someone else's photo is NOT a gray area. If you didn't take the picture you have NO RIGHTS TO IT.

And Fairey wasn't attacked for simply being an artist. He was attacked for being a thief. If some took his Obey posters and changed them up a bit and sold them - he would sue.

@clickchick - take it down a notch. this a discussion between reasonable people, not an argument. i went to all-day kindergarten on a university campus in 1978 and i don't recall any lessons on copyright law. even if they taught them, i probably wouldn't have been able to grasp that yet. the proliferation of blogs, etc makes it highly obvious that the average joe - worldwide - is fairly unaware of copyright law, what it means and how it works. and that doesn't include fair use technicalities. fairey isn't the average joe, fair enough. this article is about his coverup attempts, fair enough. if we're going off topic let's act like adults and acknowledge that the fact that some of us don't know the technicalities of creating a piece like his legally is the real issue and spread some information accordingly. mrs. smith, my kindergarten teacher, did teach that insults are unnecessary.

The artist is being protected - the artist who took the original picture. If someone wants to use a piece of art that is not in the public domain to create a "derivative" work, permission is required. My guess is that the AP is involved because they have an exclusive license to the picture.

Some have asked how else would someone get a picture of Obama. The answer is that artists can use other images for inspiration - but artists cannot take and use without permission.

In this case, the artist stole from the AP/photographer and is now earning money from this theft. At some point, the artist realized this was wrong and falsified documents - and now he's in trouble.

In a lot of these cases, the "punishment" is giving up all of the money earned to the rightful owner of the work. Intentionally stealing art, though, is punishable by jail time - as is trying to cover it up. My guess is that there will be a settlement.

It's a shame - because the derivative work is a lot more interesting than the original.

Here's a link to a longer article: http://acn.liveauctioneers.com/index.php/features/crime-and-litigation/6680-artist-shepard-fairey-pleads-guilty-in-obama-hope-poster-case

I like how everyone is defending the "artist" being Fairey, and not the original photographer, who is actually the one who owns the copyright on his hard work. WTG, AT readers. You keep at the crusade.

Fairey- Keep Calm and Carry On...

I used to be a huge fan on Fairey, until I saw the massive amount of art work that he has " borrowed". I think he overdoes it. Not getting sympathy from me, and I'm an artist myself.

If you want to paint something directly from a photograph that someone else took, that is totally fine, as long as you get the artist's permission first. And then, when you fail to act respectfully and get caught ripping off another artist's work without their knowledge or consent, you apologize profusely and try to make amends, not falsify documents to cover up what you did. While jail time seems silly for this (it seems like such a waste of money incarcerating someone for a first-offense, non-violent crime), I don't think they should be lenient at all with fining him. He stole from another artist, and deserves some kind of punishment.

@Muesli: Same exact thing happened to me. I Googled "Shepard Fairey plagiarism" and that was the end of that.

15% of commenters actually read the article.

Fairey has also sued other artists for doing reinterpreting his own work. You can't have it both ways.

Shepard Fairey hasn't been a "struggling" artist for decades (not rich, but not "struggling"). He could easily have attained the rights to use the photo, or have used the photo he originally claimed to have used. But he didn't, and he falsified evidence to try and cover up his plagerism. Photographers have a right to have their work protected, just as much as any other artist.

This isn't the first time he has been caught using other people's work without credit. The fact that he tried to hide his source just proves that he knows what he did was wrong.

For more examples of Fairey's 'borrowing' see:
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

Shepard Fairy is not only a criminal but a hypocrite. He threatened Austin, TX artist Baxter Orr with a lawsuit for using his images without permission.. hmm.. so he wanted to sue someone for doing exactly what he himself does!!! I hope he gets the six months in jail, maybe then he'll realize whats up. Heres to your butt getting popped, you Fairey.

"Since when do artists have tons of money...?"

Since art became an investment tool for the rich. Many artists today are worth many, many millions of dollars.

One of the reasons why photography is so overrated. Please lets not draw parallels between this and sampling music.

Snapping a picture of someone and writing, playing, recording, and mixing a piece of original music (creating something from nothing) are two entirely different things.