FUP Withdraws From Fairey Case; Hope Remains

As reported, we are no longer representing Shepard Fairey in his dispute with The Associated Press. The events that led to this have been well-publicized; they involve Shepard's deletion of electronic files relating to the question of which photograph he used to create the Obama Hope poster, and his creation of new documents designed to make it look as though he used a different photograph.

There are lots of reasons lawyers may not be able to continue representing a client. But it's important to make one thing clear: Our decision in that regard had nothing to do with the underlying merits of Shepard's case. We believe as strongly as ever in the fair use and free expression issues this case presents, and we believe Shepard will prevail on them. The question of which photo he used as a reference simply should not make a difference, much less overshadow the merits of this important case.

Shepard has a fantastic set of lawyers representing him now, so he is in good hands, as are the important rights at stake in this case. That fact makes us profoundly happy. We'll be watching and rooting for Shepard, albeit now from the sidelines.


Now that Fairey has admitted it in court it just goes to show how far some Free Culture advocates will go to try and cheat the system. He has hurt people who legitimately work under fair use and should be called out for it.

Hello, i am pretty sure I am off topic, but I would like to ask a few questions regarding fair use. I am doing a research regarding the comparison of the Copyright Act versus the European Treaties. The case goes something like this : a few years ago, a friend of mine was in a modelling agency. 3 months ago, she discovered that some of her pictures were being posted on a web site for dating big girls (...). Obviously, she had never authorized that, nor had her agency. My question is : is it derivative image and thus copyright infringement (since they took her picture and edited it in order to look like she was standing in front of a house) or could it be interpreted as fair use? Needless to say, there is no mention of the photographer or any credit whatsoever.
I am really interested to see how the u.s legislature would treat this case and whether there are similar cases. Also, I was wondering whether it is possible to assume that, by signing a contract and allowing her agency to distribute her photos, she basically signed a waiver on her ip rights?
Thank you in advance for your time. Looking forward to reading your comments.

Add new comment