Garcia v Fairey is one of the most talked about mo Essays - Data

Garcia v Fairey is one of the most talked about modern day cases in respect to copyright law. This case is a heavy tug of war between the two. Who has the right to what? Who deserves the money? Most of all, who's in the right? In this essay, the discussion of rights and copyright law will be discussed, and how, at the very least in a legal respect, Fairey crossed no lines. In the case Garcia v Fairey, the legal proceedings cannot be followed through as you would on any average litigation case. This case is truly only based in the eye of the beholder. Art can only be so objective, and that is shown in the metaphorical tug of war throughout this case. The first case to be made throughout this trial was whether Fairey had infringed upon the copyright that was already placed upon Garcia's photograph of Obama. Whether or not this is true is up to the jury, however, there are far too many differences between the image, and the poster, to pose a reasonable argument against Fairey's image. Fairey had changed enough, down to the angle of then-senator Obama's neck. The image was not clearly infringing on any copyright laws, as shown in section 1303 in chapter 13 of Circular 92 Copyright Law of the United States, which was revised in 2016. This says that all revisions, adaptations, and so forth are protected, so long as the design is a substantial rearrangemen t from the original. This can be proven, as clearly, Fairey could not have just used posterize and printed HOPE' over it. This image was hand drawn, and there are enough differences between the photograph and the drawing to make a case that the rearrangement is substantial. The composition is changed, the image itself changing from having a complex background to focusing just on Obama, with his head tilted further upward, and with no background. Not to mention the change in colors, the lack of complexity and so forth, all form to be a fairly easy case to make in Fairey's favor. Even with this evidence, however there is the case to be made of referencing, and whether or not that could be classified as infringing upon copyright laws. The use of Garcia's image, be it as a reference or a mere inspiration, is difficult to argue against when comparing the two images, (And later, Fairey did admit to the accusations being true). However, referencing an image can hardly be considered a crime. If one were to go to court over referencing, almost every artist would be put to court for this crime. While royalties would be appreciated, Fairey was under absolutely no requirement to follow through with doing so- the image had a reasonable difference between both images. Those who say it is too heavily referenced, or is too similar to the original photograph are entitled to their opinions, however, there must be an objective look at the art. There are plenty of differences between it, and to say that it's a blatant plagiarization is just ignoring all the obvious differen ces that have been mentioned before. The coloring, the shading, the angle, Fairey even edited the position Obama was in to make him both seem more leaderly' and to fit in an emblem (or pin) on the suit. These differences cannot be argued just because the poster was referenced by the image, or because it is similar to it. The grounds on which Garcia based his lawsuit are flimsy, and difficult to prove, even with a scan over. Unless he somehow manages to prove that Fairey traced over his image, specifically (and looking at the details of the piece, that's yet another hard case to make.) Details have either been added or omitted that would make it an obvious trace. In the end, there's no way of proving it, and referencing is not a crime- if it were, all artists would be guilty. The obstruction of evidence is what hurt Fairey's case, but the use of a reference is no crime- while willful negligence is. In the end, the defense could have made a case surrounding Fairey referencing off Garcia's photograph, but Fairey committed