3 ms·
Side by side comparison: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/in/photostre... So su
by Samuel_Michon 16y ago
Side by side comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/in/photostre...
So sure, it's obvious that the shirt's designer used Chris Devers' photo to start with. However, after all the alterations made (turning it into monotone, heavily posterizing it, cleaning it up), I would say it's fair use.
Of course, it would've been nicer if GAP had simply licensed the photo.
- dangrossman 16y agoI don't think fair use means what you think it means, and I don't think this use does well in any of the four factors the courts use to consider a fair use argument. It's a derivative work IMO, and all that is questionable is whether the original photograph is an original and creative enough piece to be protected in the first place.
- Samuel_Michon 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#The_fair_use_defense_in_derivative_work_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#The_fair_use_de...
- greenyoda 16y agoI don't think it's obvious at all that they used his photo. In the Flickr photo, the car is parked on the street, so anyone could have come by and shot a photo of the same car. If the car belonged to a local resident, it would probably be parked frequently in the same location, and if the photo was taken at a similar time of day, it would have had the same reflections, lighting, shadows, etc. as the Flickr photo. So Devers should have proof that this didn't happen before he publicly accuses someone of stealing his photo. (I'm not saying Gap didn't steal it, I'm just saying the burden of proof rests on the accuser.)