An interesting blog posted today discusses the ironies surrounding the work of Shepard Fairey, the artist who created the HOPE image that has been widely circulated during the Barack Obama campaign. Apparently, Fairey has become upset because some people have sold his posters – which he donated to the Obama campaign – on Ebay, thus bruising his ego. Afterall, why should others profit off his kind intentions?

Further, he claims that other artists have copied his style and image to create works similar to the HOPE image he created. Not being a lawyer and not knowing the details of the case, I’m not in the position to comment on whether or not his image has actually been infringed upon. But, as an artist who holds the copyright, he does have the right to pursue legal action if necessary.

The blog, however, goes on to cite some examples when Fairey has infringed upon other artists’ works to further his creations. Thus it calls into question the integrity of Fairey when he creates.

I have spent a lot of weeks this fall talking to artists across a range of disciplines about copyright and its importance in the lives of creators. I have had many discussions about the issues that are raised in this blog about Fairey.

The first is that some artists confuse copyright protection with distribution models. They think that copyright law does not apply to them because they want to give their work away. But, what they don’t realize is that under copyright law they have the freedom to distribute their work in whichever way they would like. As an artist, one can choose to give his work away, sell it, auction it, or use pay what you can models. No matter how an artist chooses to distribute his work, he still owns the copyright to the work.

Once a visual work – such as a painting or print – is sold, the holder of the works can resell the work or give it away. So, even though Fairey gave the posters to the Obama campaign, the holder of the works is able to sell them if she so desires. (Though on another level, I do get an unsettled feeling to think that others are trying to profit off these posters). I heard Rosenquist say once that one of his first paintings he sold for $200 (if it was that much). That same painting now sells for millions. Of course, Rosenquist doesn’t profit off of that second or third sale.

Second, some artists think that it is okay to infringe upon other artists copyright. But, once their own work is infringed upon, they get upset. This “catch me if you can” mentality pits artists against each other instead of encouraging them to acknowledge and respect each other as fellow creators. My philosophy: don’t steal others’ works if you’ll be ticked that yours gets stolen.

Of course, not all artists or those involved in the creative fields are interested in taking others’ creative works for their own. This past weekend at the National Guild of Community Schools of the Arts conference, I talked to many educators and creators who are truly seeking to respect the creative integrity of others by abiding by copyright laws.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm by Lucinda M. Dugger and is filed under copyright law, copyright opponents, creators, education, events, piracy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.