Both of the articles at the URLs discuss the issue of Fairey using an AP photo to create to iconic Hope poster of Obama. The issue is that the AP is claiming Fairey is in violation of copyright laws. However, the discussion of the copyright laws in the articles suggests that he may not be in violation of the laws. It depends on the interpretation of some words such as significant changes. Also, the articles state that if the meaning of the work is changed through any changes to the original work then it is considered an original work...
In the world of education, this may be relevant because of the amount of media that is used by teachers and students for education. One of the articles argues that photography that is not staged, nature photography and photographing active events, is not art but just capturing the moment. Students, and teachers alike, use photos all the time in presentations and other work to help deliver information. Knowing, and teaching, the difference between acceptable use of none copyrighted material and how to legally use copyrighted material is important to add to curriculum. Education is not a bubble, and students will take with them the ideas about acceptable use they learn in school to college and various jobs in all sectors once they graduate.
However, it is hard to educate students, and know, about copyright laws if they are really as undefined and flexible as the abajournal article seems to imply.
Links:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/arts-news/shepard-fairey-could-lose-obam/
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/hope_for_copyright/
As other students have brought up, what about Andy Warhol and his famous silk screens of stars? He didn't take all those photos himself. Here's a great discussion on this topic at a NYTimes article about Fairey and AP: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/shepard-fairey-sues-associated-press-over-obama-poster/
ReplyDelete