Artists+need+permission+to+make+this

Artists Need Permission to make this
Here are some links to background research:

[|Obey case] [|Derivative Works: Wikipedia] [|The American Society of Artists]

Here are my five best arguments to make my claim Here are 3 arguments that might come from the other side and what I will say to argue against it
 * 1 || Fairey does not acknowledge any of his many copyright violations, even though people who have worked with him do acknowledge that the images were stolen. Fairey steals, gets caught red-handed, and still will not admit that he stole. - Obey case link, art-for-a-change.com ||
 * 2 || Unfair copying changes the demand for original artwork. What's the point of making something original if you can just take designs from other people? -American Society of Portrait Artists website ||
 * 3 || The original creator of the work owns the copyright - by not getting permission or crediting, Fairey is breaking copyright law. - ASOPA website ||
 * 4 || Fairey is continuing to distribute and show the image in galleries even after the election has ended. People notice his artwork and don't realize that Garcia is the owner of the original image, so he receives no credit for it and Fairey makes all the profit from posters and other products with the picture on them. -www.Breitbart.com ||
 * 5 || Another reason why this argument is so ludicrous is because it is not simply a case of this happening one time with the Obama photo, but there is documented proof that it has been a common occurrence throughout his career. - "Obey Case" link ||
 * || Counter-Argument || What I will Say to respond: ||
 * 1 || Fairey doesnt make a profit or gain from the photo || Fairey's name is all over the place now that people know he did the poster. He is using this for personal gain, because it's making his name very well known. It may not be monetary gain, but in the end, he has ended up getting a lot more work because of it, so he IS making a lot more money now. He says he doesnt know who took his image and made a profit from it, but how do you know he's telling the truth when Fairey has lied time after time about stealing images? - "Obey case" and techdirt.com ||
 * 2 || The artist's work is public domain || In the Obama AP photo case, the AP owns the copyright, so the work is not public domain. Some argue that the AP does not own the photo, but it doesnt matter because Fairey still didnt ask permission from the original artist, Mannie Garcia. In fact, he didnt even bother to check who took the photo before he just stole it off of Google. Regardless of whether Garcia cares now, the fact of the matter is that when Fairey took it, no permission had been granted - this is stealing. Also, even though he says he approves of the poster, Garcia said himself that he doesnt "condone people taking things, just because they can, off the Internet." - nytimes.com

In the MC5 case with a band t-shirt, Fairey changed the complete meaning of the artwork, going directly against what the artist requested, which was that a) the band name not be associated with the symbol any longer and that b) it would not be used for monetary gain (which it was with Fairey's t-shirt). Maybe this is legal, technically, but Fairey has made a career out of using other people's original work that they worked hard on for profit. It would be easier to respect his work if he at least credited the artist he stole from, or asked permission to use part of it. Aside from the Obama photo itself, Fairey has been caught numerous times and still refuses to admit his wrongdoing. -"Obey Case" || Here are some broader situations which apply to this case:
 * 3 || Fairey has changed the works enough that he did not do anything wrong || In the Obama case, you can see that the pictures match up. Obama's head is positioned the same, his face looks the same, and you can tell just by looking at them that the poster is directly taken from the photo. Fairey still borrows heavily from each piece he steals from - so much so that in one case, the lines of the two match up exactly. Fairey clearly knew he was breaking the law by tracing this piece, and did it anyway. Though he may change the meanings of the piece completely, he does so in an offensive way (MC5 artist Gary Grimshaw was offended by his subsequent t-shirts using the White Panther logo, saying that "it reeks of the very mean spirit that the image was meant to oppose.") - "Obey Case" and "American Society of Portrait Artists" ||  ||   ||

-Can musicians take the same exact song, change the lyrics to "change the meaning of the song", and put it on the radio to make profit without giving any recognition to the original song?