George W. Bush Used Top Google Results For All His Paintings; Will He Be Sued For Copyright Infringement?

from the w-is-an-appropriation-artist dept

Wed, Apr 9th 2014 1:59pm — Mike Masnick

You may have heard the recent stories about former President George W. Bush's new exhibit of paintings of world leaders. There's been plenty of chatter about the former President picking up painting as a hobby since leaving office. While many may have assumed that he used his experience in meeting with those world leaders in order to have an accurate representation of what they looked like, the truth is that he just pulled results from Google Image search result for each one. Literally. Some people have gone through and done Google Image searches on each of the subjects he painted, and discovered that the paintings were clearly all based on either the very first result, or very near the top search result.

Yes, that's right. George W. Bush is an appropriation artist.

Many of those images are from Wikipedia, where they're under Creative Commons licensing, but others are clearly covered by copyright. As Animal New York notes, the image of former French President Jacques Chirac comes from a photo of the cover of Chirac's book cover, where the copyright on the photo is actually held by the Associated Press.

The Animal New York article is probably correct that it's unlikely that the Associated Press will go after the former President for copyright infringement, but only because it's hypocritical. In the past, the Associated Press did, in fact, sue Shepard Fairey over his iconic image of President Obama, that was also based on an AP photo. Fairey (stupidly) did himself in by trying to destroy evidence and then lie about it, seriously harming his case, and distracting from the central question of whether or not his image was fair use. But, the AP has sued others over that image as well, so you never know.

While the chances are minimal, it certainly would be interesting to have a case in which, of all people, George W. Bush, becomes the poster child for fair use.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: appropriation art, copyright, george w. bush, image search, paintings, photographs, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DavidDFW, 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:14pm

Surely no other artist would do that
Really? Go look at some of the creations at Deviant Art. Just don't tell me that all of them were created without another image as the basis.

Oh yeah, almost forgot [/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:16pm

Why painting someone will get you a Copyright Infringement? Never heard before
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:28pm

Really?
I really like this site since it offers a lot of (highly biased) information on topics that very few organizations cover, but I swear some of the authors are just wrong about how they think the world works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:36pm

Re:
see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues

The "hope" poster is a painting that resembles a picture taken by a reporter from AP. The result was, a civil lawsuit by AP against the artist that was settled after the judge noted that AP has a good chance of winning and a criminal lawsuit against the artists ended with 300 hours community service and a 25000$ fine.

All that for doing what bush did. When can we expect this copyright criminal to face justice as well?

Oh, I forgot, he belongs to the people in power the law only applies to the serfs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:38pm

Re: Really?
Can you perhaps explain what the author is wrong about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:43pm

Re: Really?
I swear some of the authors are just wrong about how they think the world works.

What did we get wrong in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2014 @ 2:44pm

Re: Really?
Yeah, it's hard filtering out the sanity from the insanity around here, alas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 5:03pm

fair's fair
It's true that Mr. Bush will not be sued over these paintings because he is a former president of the United States.

But let's face it, if he weren't a former president of the United States, no one would ever have looked twice at these wretched paintings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doug (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 5:50pm

Meritocracy, hah! Mediocracy, surely.
It hurts my head every time I am forced to be conscious of the fact that Dubya was *president*! It's like a hammer hitting me on the head to remind me we don't live in a meritocracy. If Bush can succeed, one can only conclude that we live in a mediocracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Dirt, 9 Apr 2014 @ 6:00pm

None of you understand copyright law at all!

Copyright protection for a photograph extends only to those components of a work that are original to the author.

The subjects face or likeness is never "original" to the author (or photographer).

While the photographer does own the rights to redistribution of his actual photo, he does not ever own the likeness of a persons face so there is nothing illegal or even wrong in painting someone's face from someone else's photograph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 6:08pm

Re:
None of you understand copyright law at all!

I beg to differ, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Copyright protection for a photograph extends only to those components of a work that are original to the author.

Yes. But that includes framing and lighting. And the paintings copy that. So... But if you were to argue that they're fair use, we'd agree with you.

No one is saying that these are infringing. Just wondering if there's a lawsuit coming.

The subjects face or likeness is never "original" to the author (or photographer).

While the photographer does own the rights to redistribution of his actual photo, he does not ever own the likeness of a persons face so there is nothing illegal or even wrong in painting someone's face from someone else's photograph.

Yes. We agree. And yet, the AP still sued Shepard Fairey over the same damn thing. We agree that this shouldn't be infringing for all the reasons you say. But there have been identical lawsuits.

So why are you arguing with us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2014 @ 6:20pm

with all due respect, his "artwork" infringes on copyrighted work of certain chimp, who was given paintbrush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2014 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Really?
Shhhh.... this place is pure comic gold...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My Name Here, 9 Apr 2014 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re:
And yet, the AP still sued Shepard Fairey

And yet, it wasn't the same thing. He didn't look at a picture and create a new work by himself, rather he tok the existing work and digitally manipulated it. The underlying work was still there.

Had he taken a pen and paper and drawn his own version of the original image and worked from there, he wouldn't have had the problems that he did.

The difference between his work and the painting by Bush is night and day unless (to quote you) "you squint and sneeze, you might sorta, kinda think maybe could be qualified" as the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doug (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 9:48pm

Re: Meritocracy, hah! Mediocracy, surely.
It hurts my wallet every time I realize that Obama is president now. And that hurt will continue for years to come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Apr 2014 @ 12:33am

Re: Re: Re:
And yet, it wasn't the same thing. He didn't look at a picture and create a new work by himself, rather he tok the existing work and digitally manipulated it. The underlying work was still there.

You're wrong. Both cases are nearly identical. Starting with an image found on Google search, a new image was painted.

Had he taken a pen and paper and drawn his own version of the original image and worked from there, he wouldn't have had the problems that he did.

Except, uh, you're wrong. That's exactly what Shepard Fairey did.

Either way, what you're claiming has no basis in copyright law. At all. So, try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
my name here, 10 Apr 2014 @ 12:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except, uh, you're wrong. That's exactly what Shepard Fairey did.

My understanding is that this work was created in photoshop or similar digital tools, using the original image as the source material. Can you provide something that shows this is not true? The original was made in a couple of hours on computer, if I get the story correct.

what you're claiming has no basis in copyright law

So you assertion is that using someone else's work, and modifying it digitally negates the copyright on it? Can you suggest how much is enough? When does it become truly transformative and not just derivative?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 1:27am

At least he got familiar with the faces he worked with.
All presidents should paint a picture of the leaders he/she meets, even if it looks horrible. It would add a little more touch to politics.
But then, everyone would paint Putin and Obama with devil horns...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 2:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the good ol' "It's different BECAUSE COMPUTERS" argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 4:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't understand shit, horse with no name.

But considering that you're the sort of jackass who thinks Prenda is enforcing copyright law, the above statement is a given.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 5:12am

Re: Really?
I really like your comment since it offers a lot of (highly obtuse) non information on topics that very few commenters cover, but I swear some of your opinions are just wrong about how you think the world should work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 5:14am

Re: Re: Meritocracy, hah! Mediocracy, surely.
It hurts society every time a clueless partisan comment is made, always has and always will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 5:17am

Re:
Yeah, just those two - all other world "leaders" are saints.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reality bites, 10 Apr 2014 @ 10:05am

I've seen babies draw better pictures with their poop.
Bush isn't an artist, he is a cretin, pretending a moronic parasite has talent to humor him is of no benefit to anyone.

The talent-less drooler should be in prison awaiting his trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2014 @ 8:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
can you show that your assertion that is was made using photoshop and that it was made in a couple of hours is true?

even if true, What does the time frame that it took to create have to do with the creativity of the work.

Ever hear of transformative worl.

you are nothing but a Moron with no name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patrick Seitz (profile), 13 Apr 2014 @ 9:52am

Don't forget George Zimmerman
The AP has threatened to sue Zimmerman for using a photo as the basis of one of his paintings.

Like them or not, Bush and Zimmerman deserve the same fair use protections as the rest of us.

http://techmediatainment.blogspot.com/2014/02/sourcing-photos-part-2-fair-use.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doug, 25 Apr 2014 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he projected the picture via light onto a canvas and traced it, would that then be an OK transformation? Is the problem that it was done digitally? I hope not, because that wouldn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
b.e. singer, 7 May 2014 @ 6:15pm

Re: right on....
Yo Joe,
You've got it right !!! b.e. singer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
_You don't understand shit, horse with no name.

But considering that you're the sort of jackass who thinks Prenda is enforcing copyright law, the above statement is a given._

The above commentary was "censored" according to My_Name_Here; therefore he considers it true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]