2A) In the field of illustration, it is more challenging to plagiarize someone’s work outright by claiming it as your own without making any alterations. Through my experience, I have come to understand that illustrators are highly vigilant about protecting their original characters and do not approve of others creating public pieces featuring them, particularly if there is financial gain involved. I have never engaged in the act of appropriating someone else’s character or design work, and should I ever make reference to it, I would duly credit and link the original designer’s name or account.
2B) In the Fairey Copyright case, it is evident how complex copyright laws can become in regards to intellectual property. While Mr. Fairey’s art was impactful and supported certain ideals, he utilized images that fell under fair use. However, despite this justification, he reproduced and altered the image without obtaining permission from the original owner. Ultimately, regardless of perspective, it can be concluded that this act constituted as theft of intellectual property. Attempting to create counterfeit images in order to conceal his actions was an unethical decision, indicating that Mr. Fairey was aware of his theft rather than it being unintentional. The fact that he had gained significant recognition and influence played a major role in him receiving leniency in this matter. After discussing the situation with The Associated Press, they were able to come to a mutual agreement for both parties. However, other designers who may find themselves in a similar predicament may not receive the same level of leniency if their work is not as widely acknowledged.
Upon reviewing the articles and newsletters, my perspective has remained largely unchanged. I was already aware of the prevalent issue of plagiarism in the design industry. It is crucial for smaller designers to exercise extreme caution when faced with situations similar to the Fairey Copyright case. The fact that Fairey’s position of power and recognition played a role in his receiving a reduced punishment only further highlights the importance of being diligent in protecting one’s own work. It is important to note that not all designers possess the authority to utilize work that has been previously done without proper acknowledgement. It is imperative for us, as professionals in this field, to be vigilant and refrain from appropriating ideas without crediting their source. Being conscious of this fact plays a crucial role in maintaining ethical standards within our career path. Moving forward, I intend to increase my awareness and exercise caution when navigating through this profession.
Citation(s)
- “Case Study on Fair Use and Fair Dealing: The Hope Poster Litigation” Fisher, W. (2012). PDF. Cambridge; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.
- “Use of Photography” AIGA. (2001). PDF. New York City; Richard Grefé, AIGA.
- Kennedy, R. (2012, September 7). Shepard Fairey is fined and sentenced to probation in ‘hope’ poster case. The New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2022, from https://archive.nytimes.com/artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/
