False Hope: Obama “HOPE” Artist Admits To Scam
Talk about poetic justice. The artist that created the original Obama "HOPE" poster has admitted to carrying out something of a scam, all the while carrying on a suit against the AP based upon a false and ultimately intentionally misleading claim.
Oh no! You mean after all this time and celebration, the "HOPE" the American people thought they were buying when it came to Obama wasn't real? I'm shocked, just shocked I tell you. If we can't believe in Obama's "HOPE," what is it we can believe in at all anymore?
I am so without "HOPE" right now, you simply wouldn't believe it! heh! How kind of the AP lawyers to allow this news to come out on a weekend!! Maybe there is really hope left somewhere in all this mess even now – hope for Obama, that is, thanks to a willfully compliant press and justice system at this point, if nothing else.
NEW YORK (AP) – The artist who designed the famous Barack Obama "HOPE" poster has admitted he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally said his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source.
"Mr. Fairey was apparently mistaken about the photograph he used when his original complaint for declaratory relief was filed on February 9, 2009," the papers say. "After the original complaint was filed, Mr. Fairey realized his mistake. Instead of acknowledging that mistake, Mr. Fairey attempted to delete the electronic files he had used in creating the illustration at issue. He also created, and delivered to his counsel for production, new documents to make it appear as though he had used the Clooney photograph as his reference."
Fairey sued the not-for-profit news cooperative in February, arguing that he didn't violate copyright law because he dramatically changed the image. The AP countersued in March, saying the uncredited, uncompensated use of an AP photo violated copyright laws and signaled a threat to journalism.
Fairey's attorneys, led by Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University, have informed the AP that they are withdrawing.
It was unclear whether Fairey would continue with his case. Although he said he was "very sorry to have hurt and disappointed colleagues, friends, and family," he added that the real issue was "the right to fair use" so artists can create freely.
I hate that image. It’s obvious what Fairey was trying to do with it? He was foisting Obama onto Che’s popularity:
http://static.open.salon.com/files/che-guevara1242900104.jpg
Tell me that the works on this page are not pro communism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2108861/posts
So, then Fairey makes some gasp MONEY and he doesn’t want to part with it?
That’s what you get for silk screening a photograph, writing the work HOPE under it (because the Obama campaign TOLD YOU TO), throwing on the stupid O symbol (notice the position of the flag of the United States in that symbol, it’s ON THE GROUND!) and calling it “art”.
Fairey is a salesmen with a silk screen, and he wants his money. Period, end of story.
I’d disagree, XR. Good salesmen tend to be ethical. What Fairey is is a con man with a silk screen.
You got me.
a con “artist” who makes posters for another con artist … ironic …
xerocky,
“I hate that [HOPE] image.”
Don’t hate the HOPE image–pity it. Fairey’s little exercise in copyright infringement has by now become so parodied that it’s become virtually meaningless. Shucks, I’ll bet someone has already come up with a version of HOPE that looks like an outdated campaign poster–torn, stained, and “oh-so-2008.”
Heckfire, even as I type this I’ll bet some folks who voted for Obama last November are now gazing at Fairey’s PhotoShopped masterpiece and muttering, “What the f*** was I thinking on Election Day?”
Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup
Happy Sunday! I think we are close enough to Halloween to go with a costume themed pinup. I had a different cued up, but, it was a bit racier than the norm. No nudity, just racy. If you want to see it, go here. Maybe Ill use it on Halloween pro…
I’m not exactly Fairey’s biggest fan — in fact, I’ve been razzing him on my blog for some time now. (I also have some notoriety as an Obama critic.) But much of the commentary I’ve seen comes from people who know nothing about illustration.
Fairey’s Obama poster was not made mechanically. He did not use a silk screen, as did Andy Warhol (who really WAS a massive fraud). I know Photoshop at least as well as Fairey does, and I can find no way to make a proper recapitulation of the work simply by applying a set of filters to that photograph.
Bottom line: He did his own drawing, even though he used a photograph for reference.
Before you pretend to find the use of photographic reference shocking, you should know that virtually EVERY realistic illustration of a public figure done over the course of the past hundred-or-so years has relied on photo reference.
One of my art teachers was Nancy Ohanian, an award-winning illustrator for the Los Angeles Times Sunday Opinion section. She certainly knew how to draw a fine likeness from life; I’ve seen her do it. But she did her political drawings from photos, as her editors knew. She certainly would have liked to have someone like Henry Kissinger pose for her, but that was not possible.
Only a dolt would impugn the talent that went into her insanely detailed cross-hatched works.
Lay people often do not understand that the basic contours are the least important aspect of such exquisite pen and ink work.
I give examples and further information in a piece written for my own blog:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/10/art.html
The point is, if Fairey’s piece constitutes copyright infringement, then the same can be said of the work of hundreds — thousands — of other illustrators. Making a by-hand drawing from photo reference is not the same as mechanical reproduction.
Incidentally, the fellow who took the Obama photograph has testified that he never assigned the rights to AP. If that is true, then AP has lied in court filings.
J Cannon- you make some good points about artists using photographs as reference material, but if Fairey’s actions were entirely within the scope of standard, accepted practice, then why did he delete the reference material from his files and try to pass off another photo as his reference material? His actions certainly make it LOOK like he was trying to cover up an instance of copyright infringement.
Joseph Cannon, if it is impossible (or, at least, unknown to you) how a set of filters can be applied to a photograph to produce an image such as the no-talent Fairey’s, why not look here:
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22make+your+own%22+obama+hope+poster&d=76827805109447&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3fde2732,2718094e
You can make your own Øbama-type propaganda illustration in mere minutes. Your condescending attitude marks you as an insecure person who is both uninformed and hopelessly ignorant.
” Your condescending attitude marks you as an insecure person who is both uninformed and hopelessly ignorant.”
I mean, do you not know about the computer program that does that J. Cannon? Are you kidding?
Still, no matter how he did it, the idea isn’t much of an idea at all. And add to that that writing HOPE under is WASN’T HIT IDEA, as much of a non idea as it is, it’s not eve his. He wanted to write PROGRESS. (?)
The HOPE idea came from the Obama camp, so not only is he a hack, he’s a political hack.
How Rodchenkoesque.
Posting The Truth Since November 2008:
http://www.obamahopescam.com/