Intellectual Property
AP Says it Owns Copyright to Street Artist’s Obama HOPE Image
Posted Feb 5, 2009 10:45 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The Associated Press maintains it owns the copyright to an image of Barack Obama on a hot-selling poster created by a street artist.
But it was the artist, Shepard Fairey, who was first to file a lawsuit, according to Stanford News Service. He is represented in the declaratory judgment action by Stanford law school's Fair Use Project and the San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri Lemley Roberts & Kent.
Fairey's poster portrays “a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE,” the the Associated Press reports.
Fairey maintains the image is protected by the doctrine of fair use. Legal experts who spoke to AP disagreed on whether the theory should succeed in Fairey's case.
Robin Gross, an intellectual property attorney who heads IP Justice, cited two factors supporting the fair use claim, the AP story says. The first: Fairey used the photo for a political or civic purpose. The second: The poster has likely increased rather than decreased the value of the original photo.
But Columbia University law professor Jane Ginsburg wasn’t as sure that the fair use claim is justified. "What makes me uneasy is that it kind of suggests that anybody's photograph is fair game, even if it uses the entire image, and it remains recognizable, and it's not just used in a collage," she told AP. "I think that's pretty radical."
Last updated on Feb. 17.

Comments
J.D.
Feb 5, 2009 6:25 PM CST
The AP sure is desperate for money, no? But they shouldn’t worry; within a few weeks most people will be embarrassed to buy anything with this image.
And even those who still believe in the Obamessiah will be unable to afford even food, so shirts with His image will not be on the shopping list.
Flag this comment
JR
Feb 6, 2009 11:06 AM CST
I am not an IP lawyer. However, I find “radical” the idea that an artist may not paint a pciture of a famous person, and a public figure, at that, just because someone else took a picture of that person. This reminds me of the King family having to give permission for CNN to show a tape—which the King family did not make—of Dr. King making a public speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. While I agree with copyright, I think we as a Nation have gone way overboard.
JD, have you given up on your obsession with Obama’s citizenship? You forgot to inform us on the next alleged Supreme Court conference on the issue.
Flag this comment
Warren Norred
Feb 7, 2009 4:30 PM CST
As an IP lawyer, it appears to me that the artist has a good defense in that the photo is sufficiently “transformative” that it is a new work. It is arguable.
JR is missing the point; the painting was made from the photo. That’s copying. If he happened to have his easel set up and made the painting while the photographer took the picture and the they just happened to look the same, there wouldn’t be any question here.
Flag this comment
DR
Feb 25, 2009 2:03 PM CST
Warren, even if it is transformative, isn’t it still a derivative work? As one of the rights granted with the copyright, doesn’t the AP have the sole right to make derivative works from the picture?
I only do a small amount of IP work, so I could be wrong.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.