The "Hope" Poster Guy is Guilty

George Bush shipped it to Iraq on a pallet and it disappeared.

 

Thank you for clearing that up.

As a person with artistic tastes, I have often thought of the legal issues the various arts face where an artist creates his/her own unique work after getting inspiration from the work of another. I have met many artists who work from photographs, usually their own, and have considered the legal implications of using the photos of others.

The basic conclusion I came to was it's not an issue 'till there's money involved. That idea is somewhat supported by how the AP agreed to collaborate with the artist after the case was settled.

On the scale of political scandals ...I'd say this registers as superficial. Only the subject of the art itself was political. I take that back... I'd have to say the accusations were too lol

 

Thank you for your kind words, Moen1305. Though I have been called a right-winger myself, and don't strongly object to such an appellation (while considering it inaccurate in the strictest sense), I try to learn from conversations here and elsewhere, even if it means educating myself, and I enjoy sharing.

As for the question in the quote, I would have to disagree with your version of events. It is, and has been for years in the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.

In the link above, it is made clear that the concept endorsed by Truman and commemorated in the famous sign addressed decision making by the president. To infer that it means that the president should be held accountable for any and all possible malfeasance of any person who has been associated with the campaign or office at any time in the past seems a stretch worthy of Eel O'Brian.

* * *​

You're welcome, IQless1.

 

Just to be clear ...

Although I've repeatedly stated otherwise, I don't actually believe that "Republicans suck". I do have a strong dislike for extremists though, on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as in religion.

I respect the more moderate opinions and beliefs, whether I agree with them or not, especially the kind that bring a particularly contentious issue to a satisfactory or amicable conclusion.

Others may disagree

 

I agree--extremists have little value in any discussion, even when the extremist position is taken simply to make a point (hey, just because I agree with you, you didn't think I'd let you off scot-free, did you?).

However, I think that letting Obama off as not having a smidge of responsibility for the use of this image in his campaign is close to being an extreme position. He was *not* president at the time and he was not the most active senator in the world--I'm being nice, in my opinion, but even his supporters have to admit that he was not a senator for long. He had plenty of time to vet what went into his campaign materials and should have--as a presidential candidate, I would assume that you don't need anything to come back and bite you, as this incident has done.

Now, as a student and as a writer I am well aware that plagiarism is not illegal; that is, no one can be arrested for it. However, people can sue the pants off of people who plagiarize their work. Just because the AP was exceedingly generous in letting a person off with what boils down to a slap on the wrist, doesn't mean that it's acceptable behavior and that a presidential candidate should permit plagiarized work in his campaign materials. Author Dean Koontz has been plagiarized three times: twice by the same people (who used one novel as the source for two books) and a third time by a man who stole a chapter from a Koontz book almost word for word and claimed it as a short story that he'd written. He's successfully smacked these people down every time, but he's not alone in what is a growing problem that has a negative effect on authors and other artists that put their heart and soul into bringing their creations to life.

Making the distinction between copyright infringement and plagiarism is a bit specious, in my opinion. Copyright infringement is the legally recognized term; however, when a person plagiarizes a written or otherwise published or unpublished work, it is also automatically infringing on the copyright of the individual who had created the work. Both "crimes" are equally heinous in my view. People have kicked out of school and have lost their jobs for plagiarism in the past--it's not a minor thing by any means, even if the "offense" is legally a minor one.

 

I strongly disagree that Obama personally should, or even could, "vet" every poster created for his campaign. The idea of "micro-managing" to that extent is unrealistic. The person at the top assigns jobs to the people below him, who then assign more specific jobs to the people below them, and so on.

From a vetting standpoint there was no reason to believe it wasn't the artist's original work. There was no realistic way of vetting the image to the extent that it could be proven conclusively that the work was not that of the artist. The artist misrepresented the truth, so how were they to know?

 

How much responsibility should someone at the top (of a party or company) bear for the actions of their employees?

 

I think we're asking two different questions here. A person at the top of a party or a company cannot know what is going on in terms of every individual employee. There are far too many people in the employ of those organizations to know what each person is doing--however, it takes only one episode of "Undercover Boss" to see a CEO who becomes stunned to learn how little he knows about the day-to-day operation of his own company. When you hire someone to represent you as an individual and even go so far as to say that you "support" a given message, it behooves you to know what that message is. That's all.

 

Think of all the heads of BP, Dow Chemical, and RJ Reynolds we'd have had to put to death by this point if we actually did such a thing. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would certainly have been executed already.