Image via: Art Loves Money
Art Loves Money points out the source AP photo for the Shepard Fairey image now the subject of a lawsuit originally included George Clooney. Who knew indeed! The blogger provides the legal complaint submitted by Fairey, and cites a Charlie Finch article on artnet suggesting the artist’s dealer James Danziger may have sparked the controversy. As Finch reports,
“I called the Associated Press up to arrange a proper attribution for the show.” [says Danziger] Jim even asked the AP to include his name and his exhibition in its press release about the lawsuit, which the news agency failed to do. “Can you imagine, Charlie, how many people would be walking in here now, if the AP had done that? We would all be making money!”
Admittedly, I find this statement in poor taste, but since Danziger did not set out to cause the controversy that ensued I suppose he can be forgiven.
UPDATE: Greg.org made some good observations on the subject in the comments, so I’ve reposted them below.
Even from Finch's dubious account,… James is making it clear he's talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that's whose images are for sale in the show.
Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he “solved” the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited. After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey's poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID'd Garcia's photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey's wife about his process.
http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html
Danziger's goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP's misguided lawsuit.
{ 9 comments }
“poor taste”? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.
Even from Finch’s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he’s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that’s whose images are for sale in the show.
Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he “solved” the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited. After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey’s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID’d Garcia’s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey’s wife about his process.
http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html
Danziger’s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP’s misguided lawsuit.
“poor taste”? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.
Even from Finch’s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he’s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that’s whose images are for sale in the show.
Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he “solved” the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited. After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey’s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID’d Garcia’s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey’s wife about his process.
http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html
Danziger’s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP’s misguided lawsuit.
“poor taste”? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.
Even from Finch’s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he’s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that’s whose images are for sale in the show.
Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he “solved” the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited. After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey’s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID’d Garcia’s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey’s wife about his process.
http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html
Danziger’s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP’s misguided lawsuit.
Didn’t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings?? or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?
Didn’t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings?? or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?
Didn’t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings?? or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?
What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger’s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I’m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?
What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger’s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I’m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?
What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger’s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I’m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }