Left: Baxter’s ‘Protect Yourself | Right: Shepard’s ‘OBEY Giant’
Self-professed ‘Propaganda Re-Engineer’ Baxter Orr is an Austin-based, 26-year-old freelance designer who has a penchant for making limited edition prints and parodying some of Shepard Fairey’s most iconic images from the Andre the Giant face to the pop artist’s most recent mainstream coup d’art: campaign posters for Obama. However, the artist that’s made quite a fortune by aggressively plagiarizing copying the works of others, is not so happy with the idea of Andre breathing through a SARS mask, and sent the young illustrator a cease & desist demanding he remove the “Protect Yourself” prints from his website, claiming it’s a clear copyright violation.
UPDATE: For you doubters and conspiracy theorists.
Left: Baxter’s ‘DOPE’ | Right: Shepard’s ‘HOPE’
Baxter has also raised a few eyebrows with his variation of Fairey’s ‘HOPE’ poster, instead creating a satirical, limited edition “DOPE” print that celebrates the presidential hopeful’s early experimentation with drugs. “I wanted to do the other side of Obama, the young crazy kid that did coke and shit,” says Baxter, “the flawed human.” He claims he was also motivated by the creative community’s “sheep-like” embracing of Obama, describing their blind affection as “follow the leader” adding “it gets a little frightening as even the “free thinking” artists are putting this guys picture in their home as if he is the next chairman Mao.”
In the meantime, the artist isn’t too worried, and is seeking some legal help—free if possible—to figure out his next moves. Baxter maintains that Shepard’s always been a big inspiration, and that his recreations are not malicious, but rather ironic, “I wanted to parody the guy who parodies everything. He’s based his career off this. If he gets mad at this, he’s become just like Tide detergent or Coca-Cola.”
Snippet of C&D:
(Click image for bigness)
“Protect Yourself”
A little Propaganda Re-Engineering. Signed (on front) and Stamped (on back) 1 color silkscreen print on archival white paper. 18X22 inches, $25.
“DOPE”
HOPE, CHANGE, DOPE! A satire on Barack Obama’s crazy past. This signed and numbered 3 color silkscreen print. Limited Edition of 250. 18X24 inches, $30. “We did blow when we could afford it.†-Barack Obama
See more of Baxter Orr’s work on his website: www.baxterorr.com
|Update|
.
if Fairey is going to "borrow" other peoples ideas, claim them as fair use and make money for himself and his family from said works, why is he threatening to sue an artist for doing the exact same thing? Is it because it directly effects his profit margin? Probably.
Is it a different set of standards for Fairey than Orr? Sure… according to Fairey's mind.
Should Fairey relax and realize as a public figure and artist he is open to parody?
Absolutely…
Does this effect my everyday life and struggles as a freelance journalist and a person with a disability?
Not in the slightest……
Now read my words and OBEY
I've always wondered how fairey can even use the obey image – is he not directly ripping a character created by the WWF (andre the giant)? couldn't the use of andre the giant (or whatever his real name was) be seen as an unauthorized endorsement implied by the use of his image?
[...] style, which borrows hugely from Russian Constructivism though he’d like the borrowing to stop there) as well as criticizing elements of the composition. These were not emotional “Eh, I just [...]
Да,неÑоглаÑен Ñ Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ´Ñ‹Ð´ÑƒÑ‰Ð¸Ð¼Ð¸ блоггерами
^..^ Bye
[...] Is it the artist who has amassed a small fortune based on “appropriation” yet still sends cease and desist letters to other artists for appropriating his [...]
[...] one corner: Shepard Fairey, an artist whose built his empire on appropriated art but files cease and desist letters to artists who co-opt his work even for parody purposes. In the other corner: The Associated Press, [...]
Shepard Fairey went against everything he originally set out to do when he started the Obey campaign in the early 90s. His artwork is now advertisements for his clothing line, mass produced posters and fixed gear bikes.
[...] Is it the artist who has amassed a small fortune based on “appropriation” yet still sends cease and desist letters to other artists for appropriating his [...]
[...] dava açmıştı. Fairey’de kendi posterlerini “remix”leyen Baxten Orr’a dava açmış. Evan Roth bunun üzerine Obama posterinin yapıldığı fotoÄŸrafı resmetmiÅŸ ve yarışmayı [...]
Shepard Fairey and his Camp tries to dismiss legitimate criticism of Fairey's work is that Many Street Artist are just Haters who believe he is a SELL OUT. In clarity this is a complete fallacy and far removed from the essential truth of our criticism.
Our critique of his work addresses not his financial success of SELLING OUT but his successful robbing of important historical movements and cultures. Our collective movement of activist who employ fair criticism questions Shepard Fairy’s actions and copyright violations in question. This is an important social critique of Sheppard Fairy as he symbolically represents the new breed of corporate pilferers in the World today who are exploitative of workers,culture, commerce and it’s by products. The Fairey believes that Photography is not a legitimate form as he is entitled to lift these works for his own purposes and design.
I would like to initiate our discussion by calling into question Shepard Fairey’s infringed actions through its unethical cultural practices of producing art which is lifted from historical schools, photographers and its authored sources. Shepard Fairey has stated that he has lifted the branded poster from an AP photographer for the OBAMA campaign. Fairey has years of violations in manufacturing radical chic as mercantile. Shepard Fairey has exploited many historical movement worlds wide in generating millions of dollars in profits selfishly for himself and his corporate company. We have nothing against his commercial success only against his unethical practices. For over a decade Shepard Fairey has continued with a patterned of infringed abuse. Fairey had every opportunity to settle with the AP and request clearance for his corporate company and its entities.
Instead he chose to defend his rights to steal other peoples artwork, he spends more time sending cease and desists letters to individuals that he feels his company is threatened by.
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
There are many others important critics, writers and artists who have identified and shared the same critique, This is an important issue to address as Fairey is operating as a wolf in sheep’s clothing presenting himself as a Street Artist who is citing creative commons when in fact he is hiding under the umbrella of Fair Use. The artist says he is defending artist everywhere when he is only protecting his assets and other future potential lawsuits.
The so called rip-off Artist Shepard Fairey is facing serious allegations of Copyright Infringement from the AP.
Shepard new public release say he stands for Artist everywhere? My question is name the Artist that Shepard Fairey is defending?
In addressing the Korporate War on Greed it is important to identify the different types of exploitations which are in existence in our day and age which have recently come to light. Fairey's gameface is to steal your work and thank you for it. There is a strong organic movement which is being directed towards unveiling individuals like Shepard Fairey who are now known as exploitative in their fundamental practice as the merchant who has violated a decade of copyright laws as well as misrepresenting the media in the marketplace.
The opponents to Shepard Fairey are not one singular individual but a collective of many who have taken a respectable stand against him and his Companies, Greed and Exploitative Acts.
Come join us in truly questioning our culture in question…
http://disobeyduhfairey.vox.com/
[...] grab. Also, Fairey himself has used copyright to cease and desist another artist, Baxter Orr, who remixed Fairey’s OBEY poster several years ago. Something which received a decent critique, by the [...]
Shepard, you can't sue someone for parody, learn your copyright laws, oh wait.. that is right he doesn't know them because his entire work is based on other people's ideas not his. I agree with everyone's replies, the hypocrisy makes me laugh.
Ridiculous nitpicking on fair use.
Even if he did use somebody else's photo as a guide, his work is NOT A PHOTOGRAPH.
He didn't steal somebody else's work and put his name on it- he created a completely new piece.
If I take a photograph of Falling Water, am I gonna get sued by Frank Lloyd Wright?
Copyright has gone too far.
Has Fairey ever paid Andre and Giant's family anything for his use of his face in nearly all of his works?
[...] During the Fairey exhibition, I felt Fairey was, albeit between the lines, inappropriately billed as some kind of new Warhol. I mostly saw an overgrown teenager that was full of it. Please note that I completely acknowledge the right of artists to be both full of it and themselves. Can you imagine Warhol reacting like Fairey did to this lawsuit? like a teenager getting caught with a bag of pot or someone who’s being sued by the RIAA for downloading the latest Godsmack album. Warhol was sued in 1966 by Patricia Caulfield, who took the picture he used for his Flowers (right). He ended up settling out of court, giving her a couple paintings and royalties on his profits (or cash and paintings or just money, depending on where you read about it). I can imagine Warhol replying to some of the questions Fairey has been asked with “God, but I love the AP, they can have the picture back” or “But, it’s just so much easier to get pictures from Google.” I actually don’t think Fairey was in the wrong by using the image (at least I hope not, because I steal pictures all the time for this blog), but he certainly is now for falsifying evidence, countersuing the AP, and threatening other artists. [...]
[...] You can’t forget: Fairey’s also lawsuit happy to artists who ape or parody his stuff, so it’s hard to feel too bad for Fairey, even if he [...]
Here is the text from the U.S. Copyright Office website regarding what constitutes “Fair Use.” Not sure what stage the lawsuit between Fairey and AP are at right now, but they may be at “discovery” wherein the AP attorneys have the legal right to demand all financial records from Fairey and his companies/entities related to the sale of the image in question.
If any profits were made (even if then delivered to any not-for-profit cause, not sure if this is even an element) then I imagine this would NOT be considered Fair Use of the AP image.
Also, does anyone have information as to how to locate the estate of Andre The Giant to confirm whether or not they were ever asked or granted permission to Fairey to exploit both the derivative image of Andre’s face, as well as his inherent trademark/branding rights related to his performance name(s) and other branding elements?
Below is the text from the http://www.copyright.gov site located at http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. We may also wish to read the actual text of the copyright law related to what constitutes Fair Use…would be curious to read the lawsuit Complaint (should be public record once we know in which court the lawsuits were filed) to see how Fairey claims “Fair Use” given the reports of profits generated by the merchandise. Is he considering this lawsuit some sort of perverse (and not very innovative) “performance art” to bolster his other publicity stunts? Masking this as protecting the rights of creators to free expression is horsesh*t especially if indeed he is exploiting others for his own benefit.
If anyone has tips on where to unearth the lawsuit Complaint documents, please share so we can review how they’ve crafted this lawsuit. Doesn’t make sense to define this as “Fair Use.” Oh, and regarding the source image being a photo and Fairey’s derivative work being a graphic/design work, that doesn’t protect him. There is a copyrignt infringement case in which fine artist Jeff Koons bought a postcard of a photo hf some puppies and commisioned sculptors to completely copy the puppies into a 3-d sculpture for profit. If I remember correctly, Koons lost the case and it was considered a copyright infringement even though it crossed lines from photo to sculpture. Intent of the infringer is also crucial in these cases.
Let’s also check whether Fairey actually registered his Obey Giant image(s) with the U.S. Copyright Office. If not, then it’s bark without bite. He would not be able to sue another artist unless and until he has a valid copyright registration. If he cannot own the copyright to his ripped-off Andre image, then he may not be able to enforce his copyrights in any cease and desist letter. And, there is indeed the right to parody, under which Fairey himself has or will most likely seek protection for his own plagiarized/derivative works.
I would love to see a comparison of each of Fairey’s images showing his source imagery and his resulting work, and whether written permission was granted by the owners of the source images throughout his career, to establish whether or not he has been operating legally and ethically these years we’ve been seeing these images.
Please read the Fair Use text from the Copyright Office below and let me know if you agree that his HOPE image can at all be considered “Fair Use.” Again, if anyone has a lead on where the public-record Complaint is for this lawsuit against the AP, we would love to read how Fairey and his attorneys are claiming their use is “Fair Use” given that they are not being used as “educational purposes or for critical review” and so on…not to mention that this is being sold as merchandise for-profit. At the very least, it would seem that Fairey should be liable to the AP or copyright owner for actual damages – the amounts he made off of the image he used in the HOPE images. Going one step beyond that, if the AP has registered the image with the U.S. Copyright Office and can prove he infringed it, they may be eligible for a statutory $150,000 for each infringing use (different merchandise type, different dates new prints were re-issued, etc.) against Fairey without having to prove the actual money he made off the image – that would be the benefit if the AP registered the image, so that they wouldn’t have to pay endless legal fees to unearth all his profit records, etc. etc.
Okay, let me know if anyone here’d like to follow up on the Andre the Giant family/estate and whether permission as ever requested or granted to Fairey, whether the lawsuit Complaint exists online anywhere so we can read how they’re claiming this can qualify as “Fair Use” and whether the AP has gotten to the “discovery” stage of the lawsuit wherein they have the legal right to Fairey’s bank statements and sales records to determine whether indeed profit was made on the HOPE image.
Your thoughts welcome – thanks for covering this! Would love to hear from the artist who got targeted for that Cease and Desist letter by Fairey as well….thanks!
– from: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html –
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.†The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.â€
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised May 2009
–
[...] in their own careers. Yet while artists like Shepard Fairey have become commercial designers who now write cease and desist letters to artists spoofing their work, Momo seems to keep anything of that sort entirely off his [...]
[...] other cases, he’s ridiculious. Almost as ridiculious as his detractors (who prefer ed hardy?). Stay tuned. Share this on [...]
looks like faireys become the very thing he's made fun of all these years. he's become the big business machine himself. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/fashion/08ROW.h…
Fairey is a fairy
Shepard Fairey………now if that ain't a fag-ey name, I don't know what is………
okay seriously…. i am totally against taking someone elses work…. i am an artist always trying to create something new…. but i will never ever ever ever take someone elses art and call it my own… even if i tweaked it a bit its still not mine… if that was the case anyone could be an artist and be rich like shepard…. yeah money makes the world go round but damn… i didnt think that an underground artist would exploit artwork of another person and get his panties all in a bunch when they do the same to his…. take a long look at this web site that clearly points out the art shepard copies flat out…. http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
and he calls Baxter Orr a "BOTTOM FEEDER"…. please
JPMorgan Chase didn't ask for the money, the government basically gave it to them and they paid it off quickly with interest. The wrongdoing is the government's fault, not the bank's.
[...] it the artist who has amassed a small fortune based on “appropriation” yet still sends cease and desist letters to other artists for appropriating his [...]
[...] it the artist who has amassed a small fortune based on “appropriation” yet still sends cease and desist letters to other artists for appropriating his [...]
Free foreclosure search! Find the properties no one else Knows about. The Net's Best List. Visit http://www.Short-Sale-Foreclosure.com to start searching!
People have been taking ideas from other people for…..well for ever. It's how we evolve. Artist, good artists, take parts of what they see and translate it with grace. They all do it. Its what makes it there own. Do I know Shep personally….no, but I'm sure he has his reasons and why should he justify them to a group of opinionated internet heroes. If you think you're making something original your fooling your self. Somewhere along the line, even unconsciously, what you've done is translated with your own heart and soul but has been done before. Andy Warhol took pics of already existing soup cans and put some cool colors around them. The trick is that somewhere along the line it stimulated me and millions of other viewers. Isn't that what really counts.
[...] image appropriation is not exactly a rarity in graphic arts, I find it odd that Fairey would file claims against other graphic artists who appropriate his technique (like Texas artist Baxter Orr) while not acknowledging his own appropriation of others’ works (such as the photographers [...]
I have to agree that Dope is more appropriate than Hope…considering how things are turning out.
Great goods from you, man. I’ve bear in mind your stuff prior to and you are just too great. I really like what you have obtained here, really like what you are stating and the best way in which you assert it. You’re making it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it sensible. I can’t wait to learn much more from you. That is really a terrific web site.
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It actually was once a entertainment account it. Look advanced to far brought agreeable from you! However, how can we keep up a correspondence?
It seems like he is always in the news. Hopefully he gets things cleared up.
You could certainly see your skills within the work you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart.