The "Hope" Poster Guy is Guilty

I'm not familiar with the guy who created the poster. Is he a Democrat? Regardless of his political affiliation, he shouldn't have done what he did. I'll give him credit for creating a noteworthy poster (even if it wasn't entirely his work) though.

 

If the Democrats truely believed this was a legal, original piece of art, then they should be viewed as the victim of his deceit, and not as an accessory to the artist's crime. Is there any indication that the Democrats (or a Democrat) attempted to hide the fact that the piece was illegal or in any other way interfere with the judicial process?

 

Is it any wonder BO would rip off someone's art? He freely admitted to ripping off Deval Patrick's speeches when he was campaigning in 2008.

 

So now it's Obama personally who committed the illegal act? Care to back that up? While you're at it, back up the other claim too... that (Obama) "freely admitted to ripping off Deval Patrick's speeches."

 

It depends on how involved he was in selecting art, etc. for his campaign. If his campaign manager was the one who selected or approved the art, then it is the manager who was at fault for the theft of intellectual property. If Obama was aware that the art was not original and permitted it to be used anyway, then he is party to that theft. Otherwise, he is blameless--at least in my opinion. We would have to go back and see if the "My name is Barack Obama and I approve this message" is attached to anything featuring that art. If he approves of that message, any reasonable person would assume that he was aware of the origination of all art and text that was part of the message.

 

President Obama doesn't strike me as a micro-management type. In my opinion, "any reasonable person" would assume that he approved the image, but it certainly isn't his job to vet the work of an artist in regards to copyright issues. That is the job of the artist, and perhaps some element of the legal team employed by the campaign, and it doesn't seem reasonable to expect that Obama would have taken it upon himself to investigate the copyright issues behind the image while he was in the middle of a closely fought campaign.

To try to smear President Obama because the artist who created the image used in one of his campaign posters engaged in some illegal activities in his effort to hide copyright infringement is ridiculous.

I was not a supporter of Obama in his campaign, and I have not been impressed with his presidency. Nor do I agree with many of his policies. However, the length that those who dislike and actively oppose him will go in order to try to justify their dislike and opposition to him is amazing to me.

I do have a question though. In the OP, it is stated that Fairey intimidated witnesses. I don't see anything about that in the linked story from Reuters, nor in other stories I've seen about this case. What I did see is a reference to Fairey soliciting false testimony from a witness, which while certainly worthy of the contempt charge to which he pleaded guilty, is quite different than intimidation. Where does the accusation of intimidation come from?

 

Really? "The Democrats?" Or was this really just one guy who happens to be an artist? By your logic, "The Republicans" are all guilty of the doctored Breitbart videos except that GOP TV aka Fox News actually participates in the deception and promotes the lies.

Art and especially the use of images as copywrited materials are a very, very gray area in law these days. Images are so plentiful that it comes down to the courts in many cases that end up determining who is the owner of an image and who plagiarized them. Often a good case can be made for either side that seems equally plausible.

You've made some pretty wild assumptions here Peter. I think that you maybe just had an excess of hyperbole that you needed to get out of your system.

 

Um. No. The original creator of the art is the owner of the copyright (or his/her estate). There is no gray area. Plagiarism is just a pretty word for theft.

 

Unauthorized manipulation of a copyrighted image (which is what occurred in this case) is not the same thing as plagiarism. Still, that unauthorized use can be construed as theft just as plagiarism is.

A gray area does indeed exist, and it regards what constitutes "fair use."

If any have an interest in this topic, the Stanford site is an excellent resource.

For the record, I agree that Fairey's manipulation of the AP photo image definitely did not constitute fair use.

 

That leaves my original question:

From my point of view this looks like a crime committed by an individual, unless there's other evidence to present?

 

Because it was not satire, manipulating the image did not meet the strictures of fair use. And yes, unless you are arguing that it was theft of intellectual property, then the image was plagiarized. There is no gray area in that no matter what you call it, the image was illegally manipulated and claimed as the manipulator's original work.

 

In any case, the artist was found guilty... so the point is moot. Since the artist was the person who manipulated the image, he alone bears the guilt for that particular crime. The issue is currently whether or not anyone else, the Democratic party in particular, was involved with the crime. If so, they would likely face different charges than what the artist faced, such as 'conspiracy to conceal' or whatever.

 

If somebody who cared were to find evidence that Fairey is a registered Democrat (which seems more likely than not) then we would have an answer to your original question.

There certainly doesn't seem to be any evidence of a conspiracy involving the Democratic party or the Obama campaign. As far as I know, the only people who have implied or stated that such a conspiracy exists are not speaking as law enforcement officials, or officers of the court.

 

It appears that you did not bother to read the linked article. Fair use covers more than satire.

We should make a clear distinction here. Plagiarism is not a crime. Copyright infringement is.

Whether you care to admit it or not, there are various opinions on what constitutes plagiarism, and there are gray areas in the law of copyright infringement. We can discuss either or both, but I don't think you or I can claim to have definitive authority regarding these issues. As my source makes clear, the courts decide these issues on a case by case basis, as well.

There is a gray area regarding legitimate appropriation of images for artistic purposes versus image plagiarism; this is still being discussed in artistic circles, and I doubt there will ever be clear rules about it. In my opinion, if Fairey had used the original photograph (as originally presented) and claimed that he had taken the photograph himself, that would indisputably be image plagiarism. I suppose that one might say that any use of a photographic image not originally created by the artist can be called image plagiarism (which seems to be what you're saying), but I think that definition would be pointless, as well as inaccurate. Many artists make use of photographs which they didn't take themselves without being accused of plagiarism, for the simple reason that plagiarism in art is not that simple. Warhol wasn't accused of plagiarism when he used an image of a Campbell's soup can as the basis for his art, for instance. Even when artists' use of photographs taken by others is the subject of litigation, cases can go either way, and the loose concept of fair use often comes into it. It just isn't as clear cut as it seems you would like to have it. For further reading I suggest the Wikipedia article, "Appropriation (art)".

What Fairey did was more subtle than plagiarism: He artistically manipulated a photograph without receiving permission to use it as the basis for his art. The image used in the poster was (according to Fairey) the artist's original work, while the photograph upon which it was based was not, nor did he ever claim that it was.

The original pending lawsuit which was settled out of court was not about plagiarism, but copyright infringement. It's clear that the two terms are not synonymous. In my opinion, image plagiarism and unauthorized manipulation of image aren't synonymous, either.

 

I think George Soros was behind it all....

 

....ripping off posters, ripping off other's speeches, ripping off sit-com & Nazi campaign strategy....par for the course.

 

Fairey pled guilty to criminal contempt charges stemming from his actions during or preceding his earlier suit against AP. As for the issue of copyright infringement/fair use, that was not adjudicated by any court; Fairey was not found guilty of any such charge. Instead, Fairey and AP settled out of court, being "agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law." Some might consider it telling that AP and Fairey also agreed to collaborate "on a series of images that Fairey will create based on A.P. photographs."

Regarding vague accusations and aspersions cast on the Democratic party, President Obama or his campaign related to this topic, it seems to me that absolutely no evidence has been presented here or elsewhere which supports them. Politically motivated baseless smear attempts are par for the course.

 

Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"?

 

I know that I will always learn something reading your posts because you actually bother to do some research on the subject unlike our RW friends here. They can cast aspersions with little effort but actually knowing what they are talking about doesn't come so easily. Thanks for your input Rec!