Blog: Did Fairey Steal The Magic?

He may not owe AP anything, but that doesn't mean the image is his alone.

Amid the thicket of legal issues surrounding the recent Shepard Fairey/Associated Press dispute over rights to the iconic "Hope" image, I can't help but think that we seem to have missed a fairly simply point. Fairey may not owe the AP anything, but he certainly owes the photographer responsible for the image something. I'm not talking about a cut of the profits or shared ownership of the rights – just an acknowledgment of the artist who originally captured Obama in that moment.

When I finally saw the two images side by side – the photograph, taken by photographer Mannie Garcia and Fairey's subsequent interpretation of it – I was struck by how little the original had actually been altered. Though Fairey's attorney contends that Fairey only used the photo as a reference and transformed it into "a stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message," the transcendent solemnity that gives the image its power is fully evident in the original photograph.

Fairey may have had the vision to immortalize the image, but it was Garcia who had the prescience to immortalize the moment. Why did it take a lawsuit for this photograph and its provenance to become public knowledge? If Fairey's talent as an artist lies within his ability to abstract and idealize existing imagery, then why is he so unwilling to openly reference his sources? In this case, I think Fairey should have given credit where credit is due and that he should have done so long before lawyers became involved.

Feb 10, 2009: This post has been updated.

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

All Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
February
28, 2009
07:00 pm
Link
a response to mark vallens claims: http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/ — Anonymous
February
28, 2009
02:29 am
Link
Shepard Fairey should be called out on stealing from minority artists and for twisting the message of other artists. I read articles that open my eyes to how horrible he is as a man. He does not allow artist to comment visually on his art but takes, takes, takes all he can from minority artists and photographers. If he thinks that fair use is creative freedom he should accept that artists will comment on his work visually and profit from it just as he does. NPR did not ask him about any of his contradictions and ICA did not either. He is a hypocrite and steals culture for his own profit and messages. He is a rightest selling a leftist message for his own fame and fortune. Support the ASL group in exposing this fraud. Please read and see what he does from the words of this man who has been critical of this artist, http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/shepard-fairey-sues-associated-press.html And the Supertouch article bashing Mr. Vallen is bogus. They only bash Mr. Vallen becauses Vallen is a true revolutionary artist and mentor of the streets. They do it because Mr. Fairey makes them money. http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html — Anonymous
February
17, 2009
09:18 pm
Link
. http://www.thegiant.org/wiki/index.php/Category:References http://www.brghtnghts.com/blog/?page_id=33 . — lulz
February
17, 2009
03:52 am
Link
It's not news that Shepard Fairey always chooses a photograph that's not his,changes a few things on photoshop and has his friends go and stick it up a wall. — Manu
February
17, 2009
03:44 am
Link
you are idiots. of course the photograph was the base for faireys image!! what the hell is wrong with all of you? why not go try and create something of your own as opposed to destroying something that belongs to another. this tripe is as bad as womans gossip magazines. you all lower the tone of art. — Anonymous
February
16, 2009
10:59 pm
Link
My goodness AKA-did you happen to notice that the colors on the Fairey poster follow the light and shadows of the face in the photograph? I don't know how Fairey did it-but the photograph is very clearly the foundation for the poster. As far as the rest of your opinion goes-you American conservatives had eight years to prove the value of your ideology and the competence of your leaders. You failed and failed miserably and the entire world is paying for your failure. Fuck off!!! — Anonymous
February
16, 2009
09:23 pm
Link
If any of you half-wits who accused Fairey of being nothing more than a photoshop monkey had bothered to look at the ORIGINAL Fairey piece, rather than let yourselves be spoon fed by the author of this blog (who shows a clear bias), you would know that the original piece was in fact a mixed media collage, not a photoshop minip. Fairey didn't run a photo through photoshop and call it a day: the original is a separate piece of work that used the photo as a refference. However, it is really fun to read this and see how pissed off anarchists and assorted other radicals are getting at the idea that a social democrat can be cool. The indigence at Obama for trying to break the new new left's self-proclaimed monopoly on radical chic is pretty transparent. Given that as a movement a cool image is all anarchism has left going for it, I can see why this would piss a lot of people off. — AKA
February
16, 2009
07:29 pm
Link
Anyhow, with the A.P. seeking compensation for copyright infringement, the artist has sued for a judicial ruling of fair use. This audacious counterattack aside, the general issue is an old story of our litigious republic. Appropriative artists, including David Salle, Jeff Koons, and Richard Prince, have been sued at intervals since Campbell’s soup went after Warhol, in 1962 (but then thought better of it). As an art maven, I’m for granting artists blanket liberty to play with any existing image. I also realize that it is not going to happen, and I’m bored by the kerfuffle’s rote recurrence, with its all but scripted lines for plaintiff and defendant alike. It is of a piece with Fairey’s energetic but unoriginal enterprise involving a repertoire of well-worn provocations—imitations of Soviet agitprop on shopping bags designed for Saks, to cite one example. Warhol sublimely commodified images of Mao and the hammer and sickle four decades ago, in keeping with an ambition—to infuse subjects and tones of common culture with powers of high art—that has not grown old. Warhol’s revelatory games with the cognitive dissonance between art and commerce have galvanized artists in every generation since. But you can stretch a frisson just so many times before it goes limp. Like the Japanese artist Takashi Murakami, who included a Louis Vuitton boutique in his Los Angeles retrospective, Fairey reverses a revolution achieved by Warhol, along with Roy Lichtenstein. He embraces a trend in what the critic Dave Hickey has called “pop masquerading as art, as opposed to art masquerading as pop.” http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2009/02/23/090223craw_artworld_schjeldahl — Anonymous
February
14, 2009
07:19 pm
Link
It's been stolen so many times. I stole it myself, changing the tag line to "Same Shit Different Asshole" and putting Bush's face over the button. I also did the same graphical treatment to a picture of George Carlin with the tag: "The Public Sucks Fuck Hope" — Anonymous
February
14, 2009
09:35 am
Link
The final image is a joint effort in which both artists used their skills and talents. Shepard didn't take the time to be present at wherever Obama was to find the perfect picture to alter and create his image. Mannie didn't photoshop/illustrate it before he put it out. Both deserve credit for the final image, however much credit you feel is due, and whatever the legal precedent is, which is probably the photographer should get a shot out. — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:51 pm
Link
One important thing to acknowledge is that Fairey is not just appropriating, but also copyrighting images that exist in our common history. Posters and graphics made in the heat of political struggles are often made by anonymous individuals or groups that want to keep the images in the public domain for use in further struggle. It is unfortunate that Fairey is attempting to personally capitalize on the generosity of others and privatize and enclose the visual commons (as seen by the prominent copyright symbols on his website and products)." http://www.justseeds.org/blog/2007/12/a_response_to_obey_plagiarist_1.html — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:51 pm
Link
Suggested "best practices" for using the graphic artwork of others http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/RecyclingArt.html — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:49 pm
Link
“If I italicized ‘Moby-Dick,’ then would it be my book? I don’t know. But I don’t think so.” — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:48 pm
Link
A photographer's view about having his work appropriated: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=4&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:45 pm
Link
In a video interview that appeared in the Ovation Network documentary, Art or Not, Gleason compared Fairey's art to advertisments for Coca-Cola, saying; "They're both on the street, they're both promoting a brand, and at the end of the day, it's a very empty experience." Gleason went on to say that, "I think that the art experience is to raise someone's consciousness, and at the end of the day the Shepard Fairey experience is to promote the brand of Shepard Fairey as a corporate entity, so I don't consider it art. He is about the furthest thing from art there is." — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
09:21 am
Link
Ummm, hello? Warhol? Campbell's Soup? Jackie O? Didn't we do this already? Does the photographer lose ALL rights to Obama if we want to break it down? Because let's face it, it's his face and the guy snapped a camera at it in a typical, almost blank pose. Fairey's composition made it into something more stoic, even if it was just making into a block of colors. They don't look the same to me, sorry. It's obvious that it was used for the interpretation, but Obama is not yellow, red and blue. He'd be a jerk not to tell the world where he got it, but it's an otherwise unremarkable photo made into a semi-remarkable image. There are thousands of shots of Obama with this expression... he makes it all the time. But because of the angle of his head and the flag in the background (which the artist pretty much removed, leaving only its "idea"), it's some sort of untouchable piece of history? The artist made it history... or whoever bought the idea and decided to splash it all over the place. It would have never been adopted as a symbol for the man, just another photo of him. Google it, you'll find tons. — Carrie Armstrong Reid
February
12, 2009
02:39 am
Link
This isn't about ownership, its about integrity. And this isn't a news item, its a discussion. — Anonymous
February
12, 2009
12:08 am
Link
Obviously Fairey wasn't going to paint a picture of Obama, so he found a photo that was suitable and used it. This shouldn't be a news topic. http://propagandawerks.blogspot.com — P R O P A G A N...
February
11, 2009
11:22 pm
Link
You can't own an image or an idea, they belong to society. The "hope" image needs "The Splasher" to wake up you ownership-obsessed "art" slaves. I'd like to thank Society for quotation marks and Adbusters. — Brian
February
11, 2009
04:21 pm
Link
Wow, I certainly enjoy the dialog generated by this article ... about the ever elusive answer to the timeless question, "What is art?" My definition for painting at least is that if I feel like I can paint it, it may be "ART" but not the kind of art that I appreciate. Or if it takes a basic knowledge of photoshop and a little taste for current color schemes, I tend to not be impressed either. But the Obama image is the most i've ever been moved by Fairey's work, and I don't understand why he wouldn't give some props to the photog who gave rise to his artwork. I remember being so annoyed by my now ex-wife when I took her to the Warhol museum in Pittsburgh and she kept rushing me along and saying, "This is crap ... I can paint better than that ... what's so special about a fat asian guy?" (That was one of the many signs which should have told me to run for the hills) The fact is that they established a name and exceptional personality, and personality goes a long way... — lancewinston
February
11, 2009
02:15 pm
Link
what about the use of recycled classic propaganda images to help elect a president. His images have a double meaning. Was he selected because of his manipulation techniques that attract youth to the product? At times I think he was used — Paul Beck
February
11, 2009
02:06 pm
Link
"And then there is the fraud factor in Fairey’s self-promotion. He is a fucking capitalist marketing himself as a radical. Only in America where the public gets their ideas from the TV and tunes out their environment with ipods and cell phones every possible minute do so many people lack the basic cognition to recognize him for what he is. A fucking businessman selling fucking products." Sounds like Abdusters and Kalle. — I am so wise
February
11, 2009
01:25 pm
Link
re: “Good artists copy great artists steal.” Picasso Geeez, it seems that every time someone wants to defend plagiarism they give the above quote. Picasso was talking about themes and concepts; he was talking about building art on the foundation that has been laid by previous artists. He wasn’t talking about outright taking someone’s work and changing the color and calling it your own. that’s fucking stealing. That’s what plagiarism is: stealing!" How does this sit with Picasso's many cover versions of Manet's Le Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe? — skip-rat media
February
11, 2009
09:04 am
Link
I think that we should recognize the photographer Alberto Korda who took the famous photography of Che Guevara entitled Heroic Guerrilla (1960), a photograph that is obviously the inspiration for the current photograph of Obama and which has probably (still) made it on to more merchandise objects than either Garcia's and Fairey's work. — Johnny Lothar
February
11, 2009
07:08 am
Link
From a purely formal standpoint, yes I agree credit should have been given. However, I find it troubling that a court is involved in a case like this. I think the judge should not admit the case to court and tell both of them to get a life. I do agree that there are some social conventions, a certain protocol, and believe that referencing the source is a matter of politeness and manners. If Fairey wants to be an asshole too bad, but involving a court to prove it is way too much. — http.elblogultraista.wordpress.com
February
11, 2009
12:31 am
Link
In art histroy many great artists did that...Many of them used photos taken by others like reference in their work...Warhol did it, Baquiat did it, Gilbert and George did it, Koons did it, Gabriel Orozco...this is a recomposicion, pop art take others works, pictures and images in the streets, magazines...at the moment an image is in the street, or magazine, or comic it belongs to the people...to the popular culture... saludos desde Mexico paz! — Anonymous
February
10, 2009
11:59 pm
Link
“Good artists copy great artists steal.” Picasso Geeez, it seems that every time someone wants to defend plagiarism they give the above quote. Picasso was talking about themes and concepts; he was talking about building art on the foundation that has been laid by previous artists. He wasn't talking about outright taking someone's work and changing the color and calling it your own. that's fucking stealing. That's what plagiarism is: stealing! And then there is the fraud factor in Fairey's self-promotion. He is a fucking capitalist marketing himself as a radical. Only in America where the public gets their ideas from the TV and tunes out their environment with ipods and cell phones every possible minute do so many people lack the basic cognition to recognize him for what he is. A fucking businessman selling fucking products. — Anonymous
February
10, 2009
06:52 pm
Link
I don't really give a shit about Shepard Fairey or his work. But what I find interesting is that whenever someone criticizes him, his defenders - rather than engaging in a discussion of the merits of his art - rush to attack his critic. I'm not just talking about here - it happens whenever Fairey is challenged. If his art is so great and profound, I'd love to hear one of his fans offer some articulate reasons for thinking so... — JMA
February
10, 2009
06:12 pm
Link
the pastiche is dead. long live the pastiche. What's great about America is the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Angelina Jolie drinks Coca Cola, and you think, 'I can drink Coca Cola, too'. Hope is coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the homeless man on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Angelina knows it, Obama knows it, the homeless guy knows it, and you know it. — skip-rat media
February
10, 2009
05:12 pm
Link
This magazine will whine about anything,....now I know why they call it a rag. — Anonymous

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 84,801 strong!

Join Us >>

TOOLS FOR ACTIVISTS

Gift Adbusters

Share Adbusters - Purchase a gift subscription.

Media Empowerment Kit

High school teachers! Inspire, inform, excite and challenge your students with this multimedia literacy kit.

What's This?

RECENT ADBUSTERS MAGAZINES

SUBSCRIBE BACK ISSUES
Logo Small