What would Henry Ford have to say about all this?
by David Burney on March 5, 2009
I [heart] Hope.
Perhaps the topic is dated now. It’s so two weeks ago. But recently one of the design world’s greatest and most beloved icons— Milton Glaser— entered into the Sheppard Fairey v. Associated Press copyright battle. Mr. Glaser is famous for creating the I [heart] NY art along with dozens (hundreds, thousands) of other iconic graphic designs. He’s something of a hero to me.
Now, my friend Paul Jones has been twittering up a proper storm about Fairey’s lawyer— Tony Falzone— being on UNC Chapel Hill’s campus this week. So I thought I’d enter into the fray myself.
My initial response— what an industrial-age argument to be having!
As I read the Print Magazine interview, Glaser’s lack of comfort seemed to be caused less by the legal argument of ownership and more centered on the ethics of attribution and the moral issues of training young artists and designers in art and craft. I’m in full agreement on those issues.
But does anyone really think the AP or its photographer could have used its own ‘art’ on posters, t-shirts, et. al. and created an effect similar to that of Fairey’s poster? No reasonable person believes that.
Fairey created an iconic image out of a generic photograph. I love and respect Milton Glaser and everything he means to the design profession. But if he is arguing the legal issues involved, I’m afraid he will be asked to eat his hat by Falzone, if it pleases the court. Let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that. [DISCLAIMER: I, of course, AM NOT A LAWYER, judge or legal scholar, although I sometimes like to mimic the lines of the judge in Miracle on 34th Street: "Overruled!"]
Perhaps the talents and products of artists and designers have been so devalued over the last century or two that we’ve had to protect ourselves as best we can. We’ve prospered by successfully assigning value to the artifacts we create.
But culture and the creative process is the real creator of value. And that value is diminished any time artifacts are the sole representation of value. We can’t even see it anymore. But open source software development is a powerful proof point.
Value in open source software is found in the community of developers, in the culture and the authentic meritocracy their culture demands. It’s found in the genuine participation of customers and partners throughout the entire ecosystem. It’s messy. But businesses who serve and support those participants provide value. Those who seek to control, own or exploit the culture of these communities lose value.
This is one of the reasons I love Red Hat’s new mission statement (my good friends Chris Grams and Jonathon Opp are still up to good). Detailed in Matt Asay‘s blog (where he read it in a Red Hat ‘bathroom briefing’), it is simple, beautiful and right on target.
“To be the catalyst in communities of customers, developers, and partners creating better technology the open source way”
I suspect that one might puzzle Mr Ford, too.
The opportunity for the design profession to redefine its own value is now. We will lose out again if we defend old models of ownership that are increasingly irrelevant. Each of us has to decide whether we believe primarily that design is a driver of innovation and problem solving, or of property. I’ll stand with the open source community, Fairey, Andy Warhol, Public Enemy and Isaac Newton on this one.
Of course, it wouldn’t hurt if Fairey stood with me too. Argh.
Comment 1
In the process, Ford engineered some of the most exciting, inspiring and daring cars of all time, and AutoAnything has tons of accessories for them. Design Software
Comment 2
As someone who’s knee jerk response is to defend the photographer, your point is well taken by this old guard. I still maintain that when there is money involved, Fairey needs to cough it up and should have out front, ahead of this battle.
Let me through this out for discussion however:
I think we can agree that copyright protects not only present but future creativity in a monetized way. [irony at its best: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/03/fairey-obama.html ]
Yes, the photo of Obama that was the base for Fairey’s iconic poster isn’t a standout image, but I’ve made a career from “generic” images. My generic career has financed my few images that are standouts and helped me hone skills over 10,000+ hours of photograph taking that lead me to those few standouts. My standout images aren’t the inspiration of 1/60 [snap of a shutter] of a second in my 30 year career but rather 30 years + 1/60th of a second of hard work leading to one inspiration. If Fairey chooses one of my generic photos there must be something there that isn’t quite as generic as it seems – I digress.
My point: while Fairey deserves every bit of praise (and financial reward) he’s receiving, he didn’t freehand that drawing thus making his painting impossible without the original photo. There is a line there we must place somewhere.
I’m often struck when friends point to a photo in an ad or magazine editorial and say, “you could have taken that”. My answer is remedial yet true: “yes, but I didn’t.” Fairey could have chosen any generic photo, but he didn’t. If you build a house on someone else’s foundation, you don’t own the foundation.
While these days it may be more advantageous to stand with the Fairey’s or Richard Prince’s, I still want to push back to say that just because it isn’t easy to defend the generic author, sometimes we must, especially if the generic is used to reach the extraordinary.
Hopefully I didn’t miss the point of this post. If I did … “never mind”.
Comment 3
In the spirit of full transparency, Bruce DeBoer is a friend and a damned fine photographer. His url is above is noted in his response— please take a look. He comes highly recommended from yours truly.
I believe Bruce and I are in violent agreement of the issue of attribution. Fairey is a complex icon for the subject matter. Messy, even. But highly relevant.
I believe there is a rightful place for copyright. But I think we— professional creative service providers (for lack of a better descriptive)— serve society, our clients and ourselves better when we focus on the value of creative culture and process.
Comment 4
I wish I could reach violent agreement in everything. btw – didn’t Mr. Glaser give up his copyright to his yet to be famous “I [heart] NY” back in the day? Oooops.
Leave a reply