After reading about the controversy surrounding the use of a copyrighted photograph as the basis of Shephard Fairey's Obama illustration, I think that in this case he was within the fair use. The AP has implied that he used the entire photograph, when we can see that he obviously didn't. The photograph was not reproduced pixel for pixel. Also, the photo just happened to capture one moment of Obama's posture, which we've seen in countless other depictions of him, including photo and video. Obama always has that chin-lifted, I'm-your-saviour look on his face. So if someone who recorded a video of Obama pulled a still of him in the same posture, would the videographer have the same claim as the photographer in question? I understand that Fairey has acknowledged the use of a particular image as reference, but there is really nothing unique about that image when viewed in the rather overwhelming amount of Obama images that we are drowing in every day. I think Fairey's goal was to capture the essence of Obama's attitude, which he did while using a particular photograph as a reference.
One point regarding the use of the advertisement on the Esquire cover: If it was Bush's face which the ad was cut out of, people would either be thrilled at the "desecration" or wouldn't care. There seems to be a one-sidedness to the majority of the design community's thinking.
"If we believe in freedom of speech, then shouldn't we encourage the representation of a diversity of views—even if we don't always agree with them?" (Debating Good)
Along with the media, graphic designers have massive influence over what the populace sees and thinks, so it's interesting to think about the effect this has on shaping popular opinion, including our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment