AP Just Can't Stop: Sues Retailers Over Iconic Obama Image & Gets Quick Settlement

from the abuse-of-copyright dept

We've covered the ridiculous AP case against Shepard Fairey, which ended in a settlement probably in large part due to Fairey's own stupid reaction to the case. He had what many fair use and copyright experts considered to be a very strong case on fair use here, but in destroying evidence and lying, he basically blew all credibility. In the end, it probably made sense for him to settle, because the court almost certainly wouldn't be able to separate out Fairey's own dumb actions from the key issues in the case. Of course, the AP is now looking to cash in even further on its victory, suing a variety of retailers, including Urban Outfitters, for selling t-shirts with the image. The whole case is absolutely ridiculous for a number of reasons. First of all, the AP didn't even recognize the photo itself until someone else came along and pointed it out. And now it seems to claim that it deserves all of the benefit of Fairey's work? It wasn't the photo that made the work iconic.

The AP's claims here are even more laughable. Spokesperson Paul Colford, who every so often sends me chiding emails, when I point out silly things the AP does, might want to fire up his email client. Here's what he said:

"When a commercial entity such as these retailers, or the company that sold the shirts to them, gets something for nothing by using an AP photo without credit or compensation, it undermines the AP's ability to cover the news.

"It devalues the work that our journalists do, often in dangerous locations where they may literally risk life and limb to cover a story."

Can anyone read that without laughing? Seriously, Paul. What about this use "undermines the AP's ability to cover the news"? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't help the AP's credibility when it makes claims that can't even pass the laugh test. Nothing Fairey did took away from the AP. At all. Fairey made it clear that he wasn't interested in licensing an image, so the AP wasn't denied any money. And, again, since it came out that this was an AP image, it only generated a lot of positive attention to the AP (until they went legal).

Furthermore, how does it "devalue" the work of the journalists? Any logical look at this situation would suggest the exact opposite. It made more people value the AP's photojournalism work. And the stuff about "dangerous locations"? What does that have to do with anything? Was an event at the National Press Club in Washington DC with (then) Senator Obama and George Clooney a "dangerous location"? Of course, you mean other journalists, but please give a single example of how this harms them in any way. You can't. Because it doesn't. Saying this makes the AP look desperate, greedy and clueless... yet again.

Update: And just as I was posting this, word comes down that the case has been settled already. I'm sure it's easier to just fork over some money, rather than fight it, but what a joke.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, obama picture, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press