I don't think charges of hypocrisy and public opinion on the goddamn Internet should limit an artist's ability to defend his intellectual property. Gawker's position in this is particularly awkward because, among other things, the Gawker trademark and the copy that appears in postings on Gawker are an intellectual property. Try gettiing through next month without your carefully built brand.
@MyraCaballa: So, wherein lies the intellectual property rights of the photographer who's work Fairey appropriated? Fair usage - at least, as taught by Fairey's alma mater, RISD - is fairly clear on this, and in favor of the photographer granting permission.
@VoxPopuli: seems like a douche? He is a douche. The whole "i'm a badass-rebel-artist who appropriates images to create social commentary" schtick is nothing more than Fairey's need to make money and bed gallerinas. At least Jeff Koons is funny.
@VoxPopuli: As I understand it, he only sued them for declaratory judgment. That would mean he asked the court to verify that they couldn't sue him, so that he could continue to operate despite the cease-and-desist letter they sent him. Otherwise he would have had to either (a) stop operating, or (b) keep printing shirts etc., wait for the AP to sue him, then possibly have to cough up extra damages for the product he'd sold while the case was ongoing. He pretty much did what he had to do, legally.
@diehausfrau: I don't know, Warhol could be pretty sanctimonious, but he was never so possessive or peevish as Fairey. Warhol had a better understanding of his place in pop culture, and how to use bad publicity to his benefit.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
Yeah, they wanted credit for the photo and probably wanted some money, but they hadn't sued him until now.
03/11/09
03/11/09
Let's just say, he's no Dan Lacey!
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09