I don’t think the readings i’ve been assigned have changed your perspective on my own design work because I feel like it’s all info i should know already.
Like in this link: AIGA Readings on Design Ethics and Copyright , here are a few quotes that I should already understand: “Design costs money”.
“The purpose of the (creative) brief is to get everyone started with a common understanding of what’s to be accomplished. It gives direction and serves as a benchmark against which to test concepts and execution as you move through a project.”
the brief: “Provide a clear statement of objectives, with priorities
■ Relate the objectives to overall company positioning
■ Indicate if and how you’ll measure achievement of your goals
■ Define, characterize and prioritize your audiences
■ Define budgets and time frames
■ Explain the internal approval process
■ Be clear about procedural requirements (e.g., if more than one bid is needed from fabricators, or if there’s a minimum acceptable level of detail for design presentations).”
However there was some quotes that i didn’t know, based on the same link shown above. These quotes are the following: “As one very seasoned and gifted designer says, “There is always a budget,” whether it is revealed to the design team or not. Clients often are hesitant to announce how much they have to spend for fear that if they do, the designer will design to that number when a different solution for less money might otherwise have been reached.”
“The more informed you are as a client about what things cost, the more effective you can be in guiding a project.”
So basically there were some things I did and didn’t know. Regarding the readings i’ve been assigned, have changed my perspective on my own design work.
As far as quotes go, that’s just to name a few.
I don’t think i have used another’s creative work and how you have credited the artist or photographer whose work I have used.
My analysis Fairey Copyright Hope Poster case is just pretty crazy of how it all went down in my opinion.
From what was reported in this link here: https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/ , they exclusively had said the following:
“He (Fairey) later admitted he actually used a solo shot of Obama from the same event, and had destroyed and fabricated evidence to support his story.” Covering your tracks like that has to be pretty mind boggling. He coulda kept the evidence to back up his story to not have possible repercussions coming his way, but I guess he had to do what he had to at the same time.
“According to the settlement’s terms, the two sides agreed “to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs.”
In this link here: Hope_Poster_Case_Study (1) some of the quotes, state that: “Shortly after the event ended, Garcia reviewed the photographs he had taken and chose a subset of sixteen for submission to the AP. Before he submitted them, Garcia edited the photographs in minor respects. In particular, he modified the Garcia Obama photograph in the following ways: he “cropped” it (specifically, by removing “a little bit of the . . . shoulder and some of the stars at the top”); he “resized” it; he did a “little bit [of] color adjusting” in order to “make sure . . . that the color was representative of what the person . . . looked like”; and he added a caption.”
“Fairey acknowledged that photographs are copyrightable subject matter. However, he argued, not all aspects of photographs constitute “original expression” entitled to copyright protection.”
The associated press also has stated that: “neither side surrenders its view of the law,” in this link here: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/12/132860606/shepard-fairey-and-ap-settle-copyright-dispute-over-hope-poster
Regardless of how crazy that was i’m just glad they came to an understanding. From what it seems to be, in my opinion.