The Obama silkscreen was somewhere at the show’s center. Walking up to it, I could see it was majestic—a marked transformation of the original. But seeing the poster only underscored how the traditional battle over copyright, in which the citizen was up against the corporation, has changed. In today’s world, Fairey may be an artist, but he is also something of a corporation, and he is up against another corporation, the AP. The person left out initially was the creator of the original image, Garcia, who made it in April 2006 while on assignment for the AP. While the AP believes it deserves credit and compensation, Garcia thinks that he owns the photo’s copyright. In this case, money is no longer the absolute end point: Fairey profited economically and in terms of his reputation from his name “being out there.” And from the start, Garcia would have been “out there” as well if Fairey had added his name to the work. Indeed, Garcia did profit from the image once his name got out; he earned thousands of dollars when his photographs were sold in 2009, after being exhibited at the National Gallery and a private gallery.
Obligatory attribution could easily be written into copyright law, argues Greg Lastowka, a legal scholar who is a visiting professor and specialist in intellectual property at Columbia Law School. Lastowka and others say that at the least, writers, journalists, and artists could be paid in “attribution currency.” Today, some journalists and photojournalists are dependent on their names more than their institutional affiliations—credit-by-name is the coin of the realm. “Now, journalists should build a career on an icon or an image, by being appropriated as much as appropriating,” Michael Heller, a professor at Columbia Law School and author of The Gridlock Economy, told me.
And finally, what are we to make of that other persuasive and idealistic argument for “the gift” in culture—that an open flow produces more innovations and greater enlightenment? It’s a profound concept. But there’s been a certain lack of reciprocity in some quarters of contemporary culture, including journalism. These days, many of the professional journalists and photographers who give away their work feel that they don’t receive enough in exchange, at least not yet. With proper attribution, the culture of the gift will and can help the smaller journalists. The gift economy, though, probably won’t help the AP and the big media companies much. And as always, a gift freely given is one thing, but a gift that is taken is another.

The word "akimbo" refers to a body position with the arms on the hips, elbows bowed out at a right angle. You cannot sit with "legs akimbo" (second sentence). If that's nit-picking, so be it, but I'm fed up with this style-over-substance way of writing and I quit reading right there.
#1 Posted by Jake, CJR on Fri 10 Jul 2009 at 02:39 PM
Jake, after reading both Hothouse Kids and Branded (the later I gave up on half way through) I quickly learned that Quart is style-over-substance because her work lacks substance.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 10 Jul 2009 at 03:38 PM
From Merriam-Webster's entry on akimbo:
1 : having the hand on the hip and the elbow turned outward
2 : set in a bent position (a tailor sitting with legs akimbo)
#3 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Fri 10 Jul 2009 at 04:50 PM
Well played, Mr. Peters, well played. Away I go, a wiser man, determined to make my point in a smarter fashion next time.
#4 Posted by Jake, CJR on Fri 10 Jul 2009 at 09:23 PM
Hm. I had high hopes that this article might mark a turning point in CJR's coverage of the media collapse, but no. Instead of trying to figure out a way to pay me, I will now be attributed. Gee! I'll be sure and spend my "attribution currency" at the supermarket for "real food."
Look, I'm a freelancer. I want to get paid. In dollars. (Or euros.) I'd prefer to be attributed as well. But given a choice, I'll take the former every time, thank you. Why is this so hard for new media pundits to understand?
Also, lost in this idea that people will somehow monetize their work by reputation, marketing, public showcases, etc., is the fact that all of that takes away time from the actual _work_. I already spend one-third of my time as a freelancer in what might be considered "marketing." Now I'm expected to spend even more time on non-money-making activities in the hopes of monetizing my reputation? No thanks.
#5 Posted by Christopher Allbritton, CJR on Mon 13 Jul 2009 at 01:39 PM
Nice essay. As an illustrator I get the attribution bait on a daily basis, but I didn't get Googles latest bait (they have asked us, illustrators, for free work recently- this has created quite a stir). I would've like this article to concentrate more on the technical aspect of what is or isn't wrongdoing here. This would mean exploring the idea of precedent in an art or illustration context. Illustrators like Sean McCabe and John Ritter have been Zeroxing photos for The New Yorker for years with no photo attribution. Isn't this a "progessive" publication? Was there a legal "appropriation" precedent set with Koons, Warhol, etc?
Note to Kirkland Ellis/ Brenden Kho: I will not be representing you in Fairey v AP. There was no malicious intent by Fairey in this adventure. Get over yourselves.
#6 Posted by felix sockwell, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 11:40 AM
When I use Shepherd Fairey's poster in the book I'm writing on glamour, can I pay in attribution currency?
#7 Posted by Virginia Postrel, CJR on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 01:12 AM
How fascinating to be lectured on the dangers of free content by a publication that doesn't allow us to pay for their online content...
#8 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 03:01 AM