Source: https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/tag/fairey-v-ap/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:19:00+00:00

Document:
Doug Lichtman at UCLA is producing a fantastic series of monthly podcasts on IP issues, called the Intellectual Property Colloquium. This month’s episode is on fair use in the Shepard Fairey case, and features a terrific line-up of guests: Mark Lemley, attorney for Fairey; Dale Cendali, attorney for AP; and Ken Richieri, General Counsel at the New York Times, who adds the view of someone on both sides of the issue. Doug asks some pretty good questions, particularly about the notoriously circular fourth fair use factor (the effect on the potential market). It’s worth a listen, and you can also use it for CLE credit in six states, “and any state that accepts any of those through reciprocity,” which I believe includes Wisconsin (do not rely on me for this).
With the crunch at the end of the semester, my series on the Obama Hope poster case petered out unexpectedly. Among the events I noted silently to myself in the interim were Fairey’s answer to AP’s counterclaims and a trio of NPR interviews on the case with Shepard Fairey, Mannie Garcia, and law professor Greg Lastowka.
There’s nothing like a fresh filing to get one out of the doldrums, however. On Thursday, the other shoe in this case dropped when Mannie Garcia, the photographer who shot the Obama photograph at issue, filed a motion to intervene in the case as a defendant. (Quick, Civ Pro students: what rule?) Garcia’s proposed answer, counterclaims, and cross-claims assert that the photograph is copyrightable, that Garcia, not AP, is the copyright owner in the photograph, and that Fairey infringed his copyright. I’ll focus on two interesting aspects of the filing after the jump.
The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — What’s a “Visual Reference”?
By: Bruce E. BoydenPosted on March 12, 2009 July 13, 2009 Categories Intellectual Property LawTags Fairey v. AP2 Comments on The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — What’s a “Visual Reference”?
This is a (second) unplanned additional post in my series on the copyright and litigation issues raised by the Obama “Hope” poster case. One of the key fights in the case is going to be over what, exactly, the relationship between the two images above is. Is it the use of a photograph for a transformative purpose, or is it merely plagiarism for commercial benefit?
One hint at how Fairey’s lawyers are going to argue this question is in the complaint‘s use of the phrase “used as a visual reference.” (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 34.) In a previous post, I expressed puzzlement at that phrase, which appeared to me to be just a way of obfuscating the creation process behind the poster. The AP’s lawyers may have been puzzled too, because they did not refer to the term at all in their lengthy counterclaims; instead, they simply referred to Fairey’s “copying.” (Answer ¶ 129.) But I’ve since come across an indication that “reference” may be a technical term in the art world, one that appears to mean the target of an intended visual allusion.
Assuming that’s what it means, I’ve got three quick comments on the use of the term “reference” in the complaint.
I have a few quick observations.
By: Bruce E. BoydenPosted on February 27, 2009 July 13, 2009 Categories Intellectual Property LawTags Fairey v. AP7 Comments on The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — How Was the Poster Created?
The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — A Copyright Catch-22?
By: Bruce E. BoydenPosted on February 14, 2009 October 14, 2016 Categories Intellectual Property LawTags Fairey v. AP5 Comments on The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — A Copyright Catch-22?
Shepard Fairey has sued the Associated Press preemptively. Before the AP could sue him for infringement, he sued for a declaratory judgement under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that his poster does not infringe on any copyrights held by the AP, and in the alternative that his poster is a fair use. The advantage of bringing a declaratory judgement action, of course, is that the defendant, not the plaintiff, gets to pick the time and place of the suit.
But if the AP hasn’t yet registered the copyright in the photo, Fairey might be caught in what I’ve described previously as a “Copyright Catch-22“: unable to sue until the AP gets its registration, at which point they’ll promptly sue him rather than waiting around for his declaratory judgement action. In other words, the Declaratory Judgement Act may simply be unavailable, as a practical matter, for some copyright defendants. Assuming the AP hasn’t gotten a registration yet, is Fairey caught in this bind? Maybe, unless the Second Circuit decides to chart a new path on this issue.
The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — Who Owns the Photo?
By: Bruce E. BoydenPosted on February 12, 2009 July 13, 2009 Categories Intellectual Property LawTags Fairey v. AP2 Comments on The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — Who Owns the Photo?
So what are the odds that the AP doesn’t own the copyright in the photo at issue? And if it doesn’t, what does that do to Fairey’s suit for a declaratory judgement?
The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — Why New York?
By: Bruce E. BoydenPosted on February 11, 2009 July 13, 2009 Categories Intellectual Property LawTags Fairey v. AP6 Comments on The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — Why New York?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2201
 v. 
 v.