This newspaper, retrieved from the Louis Geoffroy Archive of Alternate Histories in Lessines, Belgium, reminds us of what will happen if the McCain-Palin ticket had won. Yeah, the tenses are confusing, but that’s the nature of alternate history, where past, present and future don’t adhere to the concept of sequential time. But traveling to the future of a past that was unchosen can be instructive.

It’s hard to deny an image’s ability to bring clarity to the abstract and hypothetical. That’s why we have illustrations in textbooks and assembly manuals (an art form Ikea took to a new level) and why artists express themselves through pictures.

Even when the image is essentially only words, as is the case in the Washington Post illustration above, it makes the unreal real, taking an intangible thought that exists nowhere but in the artist’s imagination and literally breathes life into it, creating something out of nothing.

Images also erase ambiguity. It’s one thing to consider a series of turns and appoximate distances, or the size of the planets relative to the sun, but it’s quite another to see a map or a diagram. And it’s one thing to consider, in some philosophical or abstract way, a hockey mom becoming President, but something else to see it what it might look like if it actually played out.

I make this point simply because so many voters seem to have fallen for McCain’s transparent, cynical ploy to grab the votes of gender-focused women voters and ideologically blinded right wing voters, a diversionary tactic designed to obscure and direct attention away from a lackluster campaign and a platform bereft of ideas. Rather than treat the Vice Presidency as a potentially real next President — nine vice presidents have, after all, become president while in office — McCain saw fit to treat it with contempt, as nothing more than ideological flypaper, designed to generate buzz and lure gullible voters. In falling for this cheap marketing gimmick, I honestly wonder if McCain-Palin supporters have given even on second’s thought to the fact that one-half of their vote might end up being for one of the most unqualified, untested, unvetted Presidents ever.

It reaches a point where you just have to say, “Do I have to draw you a picture?!”

Well, maybe so.

During a campaign season, I’m always looking for some sign of how a candidate might impact me directly as a freelance illustrator.

This year’s sign came when Republican nominee John McCain displayed complete contempt for copyright law — at a time when copyright is very much in the forefront of illustrators’ and other creatives’ minds because of orphan works legislation pending before Congress.

McCain, apparently thinking that intellectual property is his for the taking, used Jackson Browne’s “Running on Empty” in a campaign ad mocking Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Browne, a musician well known for his progressive views, has sued for copyright infringement.

While the ad is believed to have run on television in Ohio and Pennsylvania, it also appeared on the internet until it was removed as a result of a cease-and-desist order.

But few, if any illustrators have the resources to fight copyright infringement in the way that Jackson Browne has. (And the orphan works legislation, as it’s currently written, provides less incentive and makes it more difficult for artists to pursue infringement claims, while making it easier for infringers to infringe.)

And the fact that the ad made it to the internet underlines one of the realities that illustrators, musicians and other artists face in the internet age: the ongoing abuse of intellectual property, particularly on the internet, where people seem to assume they can grab an image or a song and use it for their own purposes, without permission and without compensation. A presidential candidate should understand that intellectual property is just that — the artist’s property — and that artists make a living by selling rights to use that property. The orphan works legislation, which does have some merit, weakens artist’s legitimate rights as it is now written. I prefer a candidate who understands intellectual property, not one who steals it.

As Browne’s attorney Lawrence Iser says of McCain’s use of music without permission, “it’s ridiculous and it’s setting a terrible example.” [1]

This is not the first time the McCain campaign has done this. In fact, it’s almost a habit. McCain’s been sued by Abba (for using “Take a Chance on Me”)[2], Frankie Valli (”Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You”)[3], John Mellencamp (”Pink Houses” and “My Country”)[4], John Hall (”Still the One”)[5] and most recently, Mike Myers of Wayne’s World (a “We’re Not Worthy” sketch used in a YouTube ad)[6].

While both candidates have issued position papers that uphold copyright law and acknowledge the need to deal with new copyright issues in the digital age, McCain’s repeated contempt for copyright and lack of respect for copyright holders suggests he has no understanding or appreciation of the issue. Barack Obama, a generation younger and considerably more computer-savvy, notes that “intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age”[7] demonstrates the understanding that McCain either doesn’t have, or does have but chooses to ignore.

And further, Obama actually addresses other issues of importance to artists, such as supporting increased funding for the NEA, providing affordable health care to artists, and supporting the Artist-Museum Partnership Act which would allow artists to deduct the fair market value of their work, rather than just the costs of the materials, when they make charitable contributions.

It’s tough to make a living as an illustrator. But I chose to be — in the words of Jackson Browne — a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender. I believe Barack Obama will make that struggle just a little easier.

references: [1], [2], [3], [4a], [4b], [5], [6], [7] • photo credit

The Leader’s speech to last night’s gathering of The Party faithful last night kind of creeped me out.

Note: originally posted on September 3, 2008 on my blogspot blog.

This photo of Barack Obama is making the rounds on the internet. It’s obviously Photoshopped (in fact, the original, sans cigarette, appears elsewhere on the internet), and Photoshopped in comically poor fashion. Leaving aside the absurdity of the image for the moment, two of the more obvious flaws are the length of the filter, none of which is between the lips, and the fact that the lips aren’t parted. The only thing that surprises me is that whoever did it didn’t make it a joint. In an age when ten-year olds can master Photoshop, you’ve got to do better than this.

.

I mean, anyone can throw a cigarette on top of a picture and create a preposterous and unconvincing impression of someone smoking a cigarette. This one of McCain (below) took just a couple of minutes, using Barack’s cigarette.

.
But there’s a bigger point. Considering what’s at stake in this election, who needs cheap shots that are no loftier than, say, drawing devil’s horns on a candidate’s picture?* The internet is a place where fact and fiction, truth and lies are easily confused. As Joseph Goebbles noted, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it. Images make especially powerful lies. A cheap joke that doesn’t merit dissemination beyond a middle school locker room can morph into a pack of rats scurrying through the bowels of the internet, popping up hither and yon and resembling fact to undiscerning eyes. While “Barack with Photoshopped Cigarette” isn’t particularly pernicious or masterfully executed, it’s the ubiquity of lying and its power in the internet age that makes me wonder how many perceptions are shifted and votes cast based on some slipshod Photoshop job.

*I know about all this. I went to Catholic school. In third grade religion class, we occasionally read Crusader magazine, which was handed out, read, and then collected afterward. One month, I made the mistake of drawing glasses and a mustache on a “pagan baby” that graced that month’s cover. I ended up face to face with the principal — one Sister John Christopher, who I always liked — and was told never to draw in school again (no doubt influencing my decision to become an illustrator.)

But that was third grade. And my masterpiece never made it beyond the principal’s office.