Go back to selling racially insensitive clothing
March 15, 2018 8:29 AM Subscribe
Jason Williams, who goes under the moniker REVOK, threatened H&M with litigation after the retailer featured an image of graffiti which he claimed to have created in its online advertising. Williams allegedly demanded compensation from H&M.
Their response ?
"This week, fashion retailer H&M filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in New York, allegedly asking the court to essentially rule that any and all unsanctioned or illegal artwork, such as street art and graffiti, should be devoid of copyright protection and can be used by any brand or corporation, without any payment or even needing the artist's permission."
Warning : rather spicy language. NSFW.
The Art of “Vandalism”?
"...Copyright law, if applicable, gives the creator of an original artwork the exclusive right to reproduce and display the work, i.e., in photos. But H&M argues in the case at hand, just as Jeremy Scott and Moschino argued in a graffiti case in 2016, that when street art is the result of vandalism and/or trespass, it is not afforded copyright protection."
Their response ?
"This week, fashion retailer H&M filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in New York, allegedly asking the court to essentially rule that any and all unsanctioned or illegal artwork, such as street art and graffiti, should be devoid of copyright protection and can be used by any brand or corporation, without any payment or even needing the artist's permission."
Warning : rather spicy language. NSFW.
The Art of “Vandalism”?
"...Copyright law, if applicable, gives the creator of an original artwork the exclusive right to reproduce and display the work, i.e., in photos. But H&M argues in the case at hand, just as Jeremy Scott and Moschino argued in a graffiti case in 2016, that when street art is the result of vandalism and/or trespass, it is not afforded copyright protection."
This isn't about what is art, but if illegal street art is protected by U.S. copyright.
posted by Pendragon at 8:56 AM on March 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 8:56 AM on March 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
This is an interesting question. If it's established that graffiti can be copyrighted, does that mean a graffiti artist can sue a building owner for sandblasting off their original artwork?
posted by wabbittwax at 8:57 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by wabbittwax at 8:57 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'm of two minds here (at least). On one level, I am sick beyond being sick anymore of artists getting ripped off by corporate interests. On the other, I sincerely believe that if you're shoving your stuff into the public sphere, YOU CANNOT DENY THE PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO IT WHATEVER FORM THAT MAY TAKE. This, of course, also applies to all corporate branding that finds me when I'm not looking for it.
Free shit up. The alternatives are too ugly.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Free shit up. The alternatives are too ugly.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Well, in a sense it's about whether illegal street art is protected by US copyright. It's primarily about whether H&M can lock down a new design resource for free, or at least for the cost of the lawsuit.
"You can't copyright your illegal street art because it's illegal, which means it's bad, but I should be able to make a stack of money by selling reproductions of this bad artifact that you should never ever have created, you bad person" isn't really a particularly morally consistent position even if they can make it stick under the law.
posted by Frowner at 8:59 AM on March 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
"You can't copyright your illegal street art because it's illegal, which means it's bad, but I should be able to make a stack of money by selling reproductions of this bad artifact that you should never ever have created, you bad person" isn't really a particularly morally consistent position even if they can make it stick under the law.
posted by Frowner at 8:59 AM on March 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
> Pendragon:
"This isn't about what is art, but if illegal street art is protected by U.S. copyright."
What does the legality of where something is have to do with copyright?
If I break into a building and film a documentary on how they trick people into buying and eating rubber chickens by labelling them 'whole grain organic farm chickens', the act of trespassing itself may be illegal, but the actual footage would still retain my copyright, no? It wouldn't automatically fall into the public domain even if I go to jail for trespassing.
posted by signal at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
"This isn't about what is art, but if illegal street art is protected by U.S. copyright."
What does the legality of where something is have to do with copyright?
If I break into a building and film a documentary on how they trick people into buying and eating rubber chickens by labelling them 'whole grain organic farm chickens', the act of trespassing itself may be illegal, but the actual footage would still retain my copyright, no? It wouldn't automatically fall into the public domain even if I go to jail for trespassing.
posted by signal at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
If you make a profit from a crime, though, aren't there laws to allow that profit to be confiscated? Presumably if you succeed in making some money from art you made on someone else's property without permission, you conveniently identify yourself and an amount of money you have to the people who want redress for having their property altered.
I probably misunderstand the graffiti perspective, but it seems like the con is never getting paid, but the pros are getting free space to work on in a highly visible location. But thinking that's okay is probably the Silicon Valley ethos rubbing off on me.
posted by pulposus at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2018
I probably misunderstand the graffiti perspective, but it seems like the con is never getting paid, but the pros are getting free space to work on in a highly visible location. But thinking that's okay is probably the Silicon Valley ethos rubbing off on me.
posted by pulposus at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2018
This is an interesting question. If it's established that graffiti can be copyrighted, does that mean a graffiti artist can sue a building owner for sandblasting off their original artwork?
Sometime, yes. Graffiti artists just won $6.7 million in the 5Pointz Mural case.
posted by Arbac at 9:07 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Sometime, yes. Graffiti artists just won $6.7 million in the 5Pointz Mural case.
posted by Arbac at 9:07 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
This is a tricky case.
One the one hand, fuck taggers. Most vandalism is not art, and I'm totally comfortable drawing a line somewhere in a "but what is art anyway" philosophical fartparty. To think that every asshole that destroys the public commons deserves royalties? I refuse.
On the other hand, H&M may be in trouble here. Looking at the composition of the shot in question, it's clear that the art director / director of photography chose the location and framing because of aesthetic quality of the graffiti. In other words, the graffiti is artistically relevant to the advertisement, not simply coincident in the background. So they might have unwittingly turned this into art in the eyes of the law.
posted by slagheap at 9:09 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
One the one hand, fuck taggers. Most vandalism is not art, and I'm totally comfortable drawing a line somewhere in a "but what is art anyway" philosophical fartparty. To think that every asshole that destroys the public commons deserves royalties? I refuse.
On the other hand, H&M may be in trouble here. Looking at the composition of the shot in question, it's clear that the art director / director of photography chose the location and framing because of aesthetic quality of the graffiti. In other words, the graffiti is artistically relevant to the advertisement, not simply coincident in the background. So they might have unwittingly turned this into art in the eyes of the law.
posted by slagheap at 9:09 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
This is an interesting question. If it's established that graffiti can be copyrighted, does that mean a graffiti artist can sue a building owner for sandblasting off their original artwork?
I mean, if I sell you a painting, and you decide you hate it so you set it on fire, pretty sure you can do that. But the person who's allowed to make a new copy of that painting, at that point, is still me, not you. Ownership of the physical property is not the same thing as ownership of the intellectual property. The 5Pointz Mural Case involves a specific law beyond copyright law that was set up to protect exactly that sort of thing, so that isn't to say that there won't be other potential legal issues, just that copyright is not the problem here. The artist can still potentially have the copyright even if the owner of the building is entitled to remove it immediately.
posted by Sequence at 9:11 AM on March 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
I mean, if I sell you a painting, and you decide you hate it so you set it on fire, pretty sure you can do that. But the person who's allowed to make a new copy of that painting, at that point, is still me, not you. Ownership of the physical property is not the same thing as ownership of the intellectual property. The 5Pointz Mural Case involves a specific law beyond copyright law that was set up to protect exactly that sort of thing, so that isn't to say that there won't be other potential legal issues, just that copyright is not the problem here. The artist can still potentially have the copyright even if the owner of the building is entitled to remove it immediately.
posted by Sequence at 9:11 AM on March 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
If the art is illegal and the artist therefore doesn't have the right to profit off it, what right does a corporation have to?
Nobody is saying the artist can't profit from it, only that their profits shouldn't be exclusive for the term of their life+75 years.
posted by Revvy at 9:13 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Nobody is saying the artist can't profit from it, only that their profits shouldn't be exclusive for the term of their life+75 years.
posted by Revvy at 9:13 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Any or all unsanctioned internet postings, including youtube videos and twitter jokes, should be devoid of copyright protection.
posted by dng at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2018
posted by dng at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2018
Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying it's not art, they're saying that you can't copyright it if the only form it takes is graffiti. Here's a useful overview from 2016 of some of the (very minimal) set of legal precedents that might apply. That was written in relation to another case that bore some resemblance to this one, but that case was settled (as are most of these, apparently), so there's very little actual case law about this. There's also this other overview of the same issue. If I can roughly summarize that second link, their answer is that "the doctrine of unclean hands: one cannot seek protection under the law if he has acted wrongly with respect to the matter of the complaint" does not apply here, because awarding copyright is value-neutral. The author goes on to cite a number of other cases that have awarded copyright to works created through illegal acts. It's an interesting question.
Gonna be honest, though, the 5Pointz decision is...kinda irritating. You aren't allowed to remove tags on your own property because you let people tag there for a long time? So the best approach, for a landlord, is to remove any and all graffiti ASAP because otherwise it might become protected art? That seems like a short-term gain for a long-term loss to the culture.
posted by protocoach at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
Gonna be honest, though, the 5Pointz decision is...kinda irritating. You aren't allowed to remove tags on your own property because you let people tag there for a long time? So the best approach, for a landlord, is to remove any and all graffiti ASAP because otherwise it might become protected art? That seems like a short-term gain for a long-term loss to the culture.
posted by protocoach at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
This was making the rounds on social media yesterday. As an artist I reflexively sided with the artist because I thought H&M was SELLING his art on shirts or something from a photo they'd taken. Then the I read about it I was slightly less appalled, but still... doesn't seem right for H&M to be able to capitalize on his art.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yeah this asshole ought not to get to claim intellectual property on the goddamn park. What a loser.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Gucci + Gucci Ghost collab was not that long ago, to great success and great PR. This move is just dumb and wasteful.
posted by like_neon at 9:31 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by like_neon at 9:31 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Doesn't part of the charge of graffiti art come from the art reclaiming the street as belonging to everyone rather than the nominal public or private owner? Asserting IP rights over guerrilla street art undermines a fundamental argument for it's existence. If an artist wants to claim ownership of his or her work let her publish a webcomic, exhibit a painting, or stage a performance but don't tag a wall that belongs to me, my neighbors, or my government.
posted by rdr at 9:32 AM on March 15, 2018
posted by rdr at 9:32 AM on March 15, 2018
Wow, MeFi seems to have an anti-graffiti bias that I have seen pop up in multiple threads on the subject. It seems clear to me that even if the artist shouldn't be allowed to profit and/or should be held civilly or criminally responsible for the graffiti, there is no reason that some 3rd party should be able to come in and use the art for free. Maybe creating it was good, maybe it was bad; maybe it belongs to the artist, maybe to the property owner. But the one thing I'm sure of is that it doesn't belong to me, and it doesn't belong to H&M.
posted by agentofselection at 9:32 AM on March 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
posted by agentofselection at 9:32 AM on March 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
"In its claim, H&M said that a member of the production company sent an email to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation asking whether it needs to pay royalties for the use of the graffiti. In its reply, the department reportedly said that the graffiti should not be on the wall in the first place."
If this is true, then Parks & Rec's lazy answer kind of caused this whole mess in the first place.
posted by FJT at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
If this is true, then Parks & Rec's lazy answer kind of caused this whole mess in the first place.
posted by FJT at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Speaking as a bureaucrat myself, Parks and Rec's non-answer was sublime and demonstrates incredible skill.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 9:45 AM on March 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 9:45 AM on March 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
If this is true, then Parks & Rec's lazy answer kind of caused this whole mess in the first place.
Not really a lazy answer, the tagger is exploiting the Parks Department's lack of funds and lack of facist response (immediately cover & prosecute) as approval of their work.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Not really a lazy answer, the tagger is exploiting the Parks Department's lack of funds and lack of facist response (immediately cover & prosecute) as approval of their work.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
One possible consequence of this, that I will be prevented from taking and publishing pictures or videos of any built environment that has graffiti on it - because I might be sued for IP theft by the artist - is unacceptable.
I'm pretty sure that they will be looking at public domain in this case.
posted by carter at 9:58 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that they will be looking at public domain in this case.
posted by carter at 9:58 AM on March 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
Gonna be honest, though, the 5Pointz decision is...kinda irritating. You aren't allowed to remove tags on your own property because you let people tag there for a long time? So the best approach, for a landlord, is to remove any and all graffiti ASAP because otherwise it might become protected art? That seems like a short-term gain for a long-term loss to the culture.
I believe the owners of the 5pointz site had explicitly granted permission to use it at one point? Not entirely clear what happened after that but it was not just that they never bothered to cover graffiti.
Also this is a bit of graffiti pedanticism but what they had at 5pointz wasn't "tags" (or certainly wasn't only) - not sure it would have played out the same way if it was.
posted by atoxyl at 9:59 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
I believe the owners of the 5pointz site had explicitly granted permission to use it at one point? Not entirely clear what happened after that but it was not just that they never bothered to cover graffiti.
Also this is a bit of graffiti pedanticism but what they had at 5pointz wasn't "tags" (or certainly wasn't only) - not sure it would have played out the same way if it was.
posted by atoxyl at 9:59 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
One possible consequence of this, that I will be prevented from taking and publishing pictures or videos of any built environment that has graffiti on it - because I might be sued for IP theft by the artist - is unacceptable.
That would likely fall under fair use... if the graffiti that appears in your photo or video is incidental to your work, you'd have protection. But in the case of corporations using the works of graffiti for their ad campaigns or clothing designs, it's pretty clear that the graffiti is an integral aspect of the corporation's work and therefore infringing.
Also as a practical matter, if corporations are granted the legal right to use public graffiti, it will inevitably result in any incidental appearance of the corporate-appropriated graffiti in your own work causing legal action from the corporation against you. The graffiti artists would be much less likely to unfairly come after you because they lack the resources to do so. Corporations routinely act as if fair use doesn't exist... a ruling in H&M's favor in this case would likely make life harder for you, not easier.
Having it ruled public domain seems to open up a whole other can of worms.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 10:07 AM on March 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
That would likely fall under fair use... if the graffiti that appears in your photo or video is incidental to your work, you'd have protection. But in the case of corporations using the works of graffiti for their ad campaigns or clothing designs, it's pretty clear that the graffiti is an integral aspect of the corporation's work and therefore infringing.
Also as a practical matter, if corporations are granted the legal right to use public graffiti, it will inevitably result in any incidental appearance of the corporate-appropriated graffiti in your own work causing legal action from the corporation against you. The graffiti artists would be much less likely to unfairly come after you because they lack the resources to do so. Corporations routinely act as if fair use doesn't exist... a ruling in H&M's favor in this case would likely make life harder for you, not easier.
Having it ruled public domain seems to open up a whole other can of worms.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 10:07 AM on March 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Also as a practical matter, if corporations are granted the legal right to use public graffiti, it will inevitably result in any incidental appearance of the corporate-appropriated graffiti in your own work causing legal action from the corporation against you.
That is a very interesting point.
posted by carter at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2018
That is a very interesting point.
posted by carter at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2018
5Pointz was a VARA case, which is a limited set of "moral rights" protections given to a defined group of works. It would not apply in most graffiti cases.
The Copyright Act says nothing about the legality of the process of fixation of the work. As so often when copyright comes up 'round here, I am gently baffled by people insisting that the law must be this way or that when they aren't familiar with the statute or caselaw, but their gut tells them [xyz]. Maybe a lawyer shouldn't say this, but your moral intuition is about the last place you should be looking to ascertain what the law actually is, as opposed to what it should be.
posted by praemunire at 10:23 AM on March 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
The Copyright Act says nothing about the legality of the process of fixation of the work. As so often when copyright comes up 'round here, I am gently baffled by people insisting that the law must be this way or that when they aren't familiar with the statute or caselaw, but their gut tells them [xyz]. Maybe a lawyer shouldn't say this, but your moral intuition is about the last place you should be looking to ascertain what the law actually is, as opposed to what it should be.
posted by praemunire at 10:23 AM on March 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
As an IP lawyer I will note that (in the US) 1) the artist almost certainly owns a copyright in the work of art. There is no exception in US Copyright law for illegal works. 2.) No, it’s not a copyright violation to merely take pictures of public art. This isn’t a new issue, I don’t know why people are acting like it is. You take picture of murals and statues, right? Stop panicking.
posted by cyphill at 10:29 AM on March 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by cyphill at 10:29 AM on March 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
Also as a practical matter, if corporations are granted the legal right to use public graffiti, it will inevitably result in any incidental appearance of the corporate-appropriated graffiti in your own work causing legal action from the corporation against you.
I don't know if this is actually true though.
Definitely if you used the derivative work, like used the full-fledged advertisement as video in your rap video, they would.
But there's a big difference between a license to use a work and an exclusive license to use work where the rights become your own. I mean this is what Getty Images is kind of founded on -- they acquire the exclusive license to something and then they license that image to multiple outlets, including commercial work, for different rates and different terms of use. Sometimes that's exclusive and often it's not.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
I don't know if this is actually true though.
Definitely if you used the derivative work, like used the full-fledged advertisement as video in your rap video, they would.
But there's a big difference between a license to use a work and an exclusive license to use work where the rights become your own. I mean this is what Getty Images is kind of founded on -- they acquire the exclusive license to something and then they license that image to multiple outlets, including commercial work, for different rates and different terms of use. Sometimes that's exclusive and often it's not.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
cyphill:
I understand taking pictures of the mural wouldn't infringe, but what if I resold those pictures, and the value of the pictures were substantially increased by the mural?
Does the fact that the mural was publicly displayed affect the artist's ability to collect royalties? It feels like it should—something I keep in a lockbox seems like it should be more protected than something I display to everyone in Central Park—but I want to know if the law makes such a distinction.
posted by andrewpcone at 10:48 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I understand taking pictures of the mural wouldn't infringe, but what if I resold those pictures, and the value of the pictures were substantially increased by the mural?
Does the fact that the mural was publicly displayed affect the artist's ability to collect royalties? It feels like it should—something I keep in a lockbox seems like it should be more protected than something I display to everyone in Central Park—but I want to know if the law makes such a distinction.
posted by andrewpcone at 10:48 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Definitely if you used the derivative work, like used the full-fledged advertisement as video in your rap video, they would.
My argument is less a legal one than just being skeptical, based on the track record of corporations making spurious copyright claims, that they are going to consider the distinction between use of their derivative work vs the original before sending out threatening letters.
The point is to scare people into removing similar work from public view because you know they don't have the resources to assert their rights, not to actually keep everybody coloring inside the lines as defined by copyright law. A ruling that expands what corporations can legally use themselves will result in a commensurate expansion of the penumbra of extra-legal "ownership" they can assert just through legal bullying. In that sense, it feels like letting corporations add "illegal" graffiti to their holdings might cast a very long shadow.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:00 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
My argument is less a legal one than just being skeptical, based on the track record of corporations making spurious copyright claims, that they are going to consider the distinction between use of their derivative work vs the original before sending out threatening letters.
The point is to scare people into removing similar work from public view because you know they don't have the resources to assert their rights, not to actually keep everybody coloring inside the lines as defined by copyright law. A ruling that expands what corporations can legally use themselves will result in a commensurate expansion of the penumbra of extra-legal "ownership" they can assert just through legal bullying. In that sense, it feels like letting corporations add "illegal" graffiti to their holdings might cast a very long shadow.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:00 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
As so often when copyright comes up 'round here, I am gently baffled by people insisting that the law must be this way or that when they aren't familiar with the statute or caselaw, but their gut tells them [xyz].
To this point, the links provided by protocoach are really helpful in reporting the case law relevant to this dispute (although, as mentioned in the posted articles, that is limited due to the fact that most prior similar cases where settled rather than fully lititgated).
The first link of the two also makes an argument for how copyright should be applied to public works like graffiti, but the argument is based on the history of actual cases rather than just the moral intuition praemunires is casting a side-eye at.
posted by layceepee at 11:10 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
To this point, the links provided by protocoach are really helpful in reporting the case law relevant to this dispute (although, as mentioned in the posted articles, that is limited due to the fact that most prior similar cases where settled rather than fully lititgated).
The first link of the two also makes an argument for how copyright should be applied to public works like graffiti, but the argument is based on the history of actual cases rather than just the moral intuition praemunires is casting a side-eye at.
posted by layceepee at 11:10 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I am not your lawyer and I don’t have time to explain the intricacies of copyright law but essentially what would happen in a court case is that the court would examine whether a photograph was a derivative work or reproduction of the original piece or if it was a substantially new work or covered by a fair use exception by going through a list of factors including if the photographer is charging for the work or if the photog transformed or added anything to the original work. If you’re just taking unaltered pictures of other people’s work and selling it then you have little protection under copyright law. Public display has nothing to do with it, nor should it. Copyright is meant to encourage people to spread their art, not hide it away.
posted by cyphill at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by cyphill at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
If I break into a building and film a documentary
It is a rite of passage for budding filmmakers to brag about how much of their now-critically-acclaimed film was made without the appropriate permits and/or proper workplace safety compliance and/or labor law compliance, so you don't need to go all the way to breaking and entering to find an example of art made while breaking the law. It's all over out there and brazenly admitted to in press junkets.
posted by AzraelBrown at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
It is a rite of passage for budding filmmakers to brag about how much of their now-critically-acclaimed film was made without the appropriate permits and/or proper workplace safety compliance and/or labor law compliance, so you don't need to go all the way to breaking and entering to find an example of art made while breaking the law. It's all over out there and brazenly admitted to in press junkets.
posted by AzraelBrown at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
The last link has an important update:
UPDATED (March 15, 2018): According to a statement from H&M, "H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank everyone for their comments and concerns, as always, all voices matter to us."
posted by ceejaytee at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
UPDATED (March 15, 2018): According to a statement from H&M, "H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank everyone for their comments and concerns, as always, all voices matter to us."
posted by ceejaytee at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Frowner: Well, in a sense it's about whether illegal street art is protected by US copyright. It's primarily about whether H&M can lock down a new design resource for free, or at least for the cost of the lawsuit.
That's actually the interesting part. If H+M got the judgement it was NOT protected by copyright, couldn't someone sell shirts with a similar (but not the same) photo of the same street art to piss H+M off? It's not infringing H+M's copyright 'cause it's a different photo, and it's not infringing the artist's copyright 'cause of the precedent H+M set.
posted by Quackles at 12:43 PM on March 15, 2018
That's actually the interesting part. If H+M got the judgement it was NOT protected by copyright, couldn't someone sell shirts with a similar (but not the same) photo of the same street art to piss H+M off? It's not infringing H+M's copyright 'cause it's a different photo, and it's not infringing the artist's copyright 'cause of the precedent H+M set.
posted by Quackles at 12:43 PM on March 15, 2018
btw, internet etiquette (of which I am mostly ignorant) requires me to add h/t Popbitch.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2018
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2018
"fuck taggers"? Really? Are you a brown person in a city built and owned by white people? What entrenched institutional barriers did you grow up struggling against?
posted by Brocktoon at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
After reading more on the case, I gotta say. If you ILLEGALLY tag or paint something on public property, it's not "yours". I say this as someone who used to do this in the 90s.
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:11 PM on March 15, 2018
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:11 PM on March 15, 2018
Damnit, world. I never expected you'd convince me to side with a multinational retail empire and against a graffiti artist.
Despite having no particular legal basis in US law, I'd argue that anything you photograph in public should be fair game. Putting your artwork on public display shouldn't mean you get to control other people's ability to use images of their environment. (We don't get nearly enough tax on billboards to justify that sort imposition on the rights of others.)
If this were a case of a scrappy street photographer vs. the Chicago Bean, or Disneyland, or the not-officially-Scientology-related restaurant in Glendale, I'd have no compunction about siding with the photographer. To be consistent, I have to do the same here. In the world I want to live in, images of graffiti, like architecture, public sculpture, and city infrastructure would all automatically be in the public domain.
posted by eotvos at 3:00 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Despite having no particular legal basis in US law, I'd argue that anything you photograph in public should be fair game. Putting your artwork on public display shouldn't mean you get to control other people's ability to use images of their environment. (We don't get nearly enough tax on billboards to justify that sort imposition on the rights of others.)
If this were a case of a scrappy street photographer vs. the Chicago Bean, or Disneyland, or the not-officially-Scientology-related restaurant in Glendale, I'd have no compunction about siding with the photographer. To be consistent, I have to do the same here. In the world I want to live in, images of graffiti, like architecture, public sculpture, and city infrastructure would all automatically be in the public domain.
posted by eotvos at 3:00 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is especially sad because ConSec has raised the price of Ephemerol so many times that someone like Revok is in real danger of drilling a hole in his head again.
(god, i'm sorry)
posted by lumpenprole at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
(god, i'm sorry)
posted by lumpenprole at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I’m so glad you guys have decided that every art piece displayed in public should lose its copyright protection. Because the only art worth protecting is the art that’s owned and displayed privately. Great world you all dreamed up here.
posted by cyphill at 3:48 PM on March 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by cyphill at 3:48 PM on March 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
I came here to make a Scanners joke but lumpenprole beat me.
posted by gucci mane at 4:14 PM on March 15, 2018
posted by gucci mane at 4:14 PM on March 15, 2018
It is a rite of passage for budding filmmakers to brag about how much of their now-critically-acclaimed film was made without the appropriate permits and/or proper workplace safety compliance and/or labor law compliance, so
it's true. we didn't ask permission for any of these locations.
posted by philip-random at 4:26 PM on March 15, 2018
it's true. we didn't ask permission for any of these locations.
posted by philip-random at 4:26 PM on March 15, 2018
I've been to places that implement the pearl-clutching on display here as a matter of policy, and I guess all I'll say is that I hope the exemplars in this thread move to places like that, because I sure as hell don't want to and things would be more fun around here besides.
posted by invitapriore at 6:07 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by invitapriore at 6:07 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
"fuck taggers"? Really?
I’m so glad you guys have decided that every art piece displayed in public should lose its copyright protection.
I've been to places that implement the pearl-clutching on display here as a matter of policy
There are what, 4 or 5 or 6 comments that could be seen as fuck taggers/you guys against art/pearl -clutching? Who are you guys railing against?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I’m so glad you guys have decided that every art piece displayed in public should lose its copyright protection.
I've been to places that implement the pearl-clutching on display here as a matter of policy
There are what, 4 or 5 or 6 comments that could be seen as fuck taggers/you guys against art/pearl -clutching? Who are you guys railing against?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
The people who posted those comments, presumably.
I mean, yeah, sometimes people rail against straw men here, but in this case "fuck taggers" is a direct quote, soooooo...
posted by tobascodagama at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I mean, yeah, sometimes people rail against straw men here, but in this case "fuck taggers" is a direct quote, soooooo...
posted by tobascodagama at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
""fuck taggers"? Really? Are you a brown person in a city built and owned by white people? What entrenched institutional barriers did you grow up struggling against?"
I don't see nay circumstance to get angry at taggers unless they are defacing other artist's work or something. Most tags I've ever seen are on the side of buildings, walls, trains, concrete whatevers, or other artless spaces where I would always welcome even the shittiest tag as a form of human and artist communication. I also can't help but think most shitty tags could be better art is the one making it didn't have to spray it out in a hurry and with discretion so as not to get caught. There are millions of artists in the world who could be painting the entire world up in interesting ways but most places are steadfast in keeping shit free from art, or worse, covered in anti-art - advertising.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:01 AM on March 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
I don't see nay circumstance to get angry at taggers unless they are defacing other artist's work or something. Most tags I've ever seen are on the side of buildings, walls, trains, concrete whatevers, or other artless spaces where I would always welcome even the shittiest tag as a form of human and artist communication. I also can't help but think most shitty tags could be better art is the one making it didn't have to spray it out in a hurry and with discretion so as not to get caught. There are millions of artists in the world who could be painting the entire world up in interesting ways but most places are steadfast in keeping shit free from art, or worse, covered in anti-art - advertising.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:01 AM on March 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
I took a free street art tour in Shoreditch (highly recommended if you're ever in East London) and the guy gave me an interesting perspective that changed my opinion on "taggers". His perspective was that he views these as Practice. Crude tagging enables the potential artist to practice the manipulation of a spray can (which is actually quite difficult), practice how to evade authorities, and start establishing their grounds.
His take was basically "Stic, ROA, they all had to start with something and tagging is the first step in the craft."
It sure does look like someone like ROA started with tags, several examples here.
posted by like_neon at 9:44 AM on March 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
His take was basically "Stic, ROA, they all had to start with something and tagging is the first step in the craft."
It sure does look like someone like ROA started with tags, several examples here.
posted by like_neon at 9:44 AM on March 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
There's definitely also a calligraphic aspect to skilled tags - they're just spraypaint signatures after all. I only have a very casual knowledge of graffiti stuff but reading discussion online it seems like there's sometimes a divide in the culture between people who are into the "street art" side with murals and stencils and political statements versus people who are more into "traditional" text-based styles and trying to get their stuff seen in the most visible/impressive places - some of those later folks might not even object to being called "vandals" but they also have their own aesthetic standards. I don't really care to argue about the ethics of it one way or the other but I will say if you learn a little bit about what graffiti writers are trying to do you may appreciate what you see in your environment more.
posted by atoxyl at 1:23 PM on March 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 1:23 PM on March 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
"H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank everyone for their comments and concerns, as always, all voices matter to us."
Translated: We talked to some lawyers and realized we would lose, but we are not going to admit that, and instead are using the occasion for some corporate PR BS about how we care about 'communities.'
P.S. thanks to all upthread who provided links to relevant legal precedent, it was very useful.
posted by carter at 4:47 AM on March 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Translated: We talked to some lawyers and realized we would lose, but we are not going to admit that, and instead are using the occasion for some corporate PR BS about how we care about 'communities.'
P.S. thanks to all upthread who provided links to relevant legal precedent, it was very useful.
posted by carter at 4:47 AM on March 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
I’m so glad you guys have decided that every art piece displayed in public should lose its copyright protection. Because the only art worth protecting is the art that’s owned and displayed privately. Great world you all dreamed up here.
As hyperbolic dystopias go, a world in which anyone who can convince a property owner to let them post a work of art on a public wall can automatically prevent every other artist in the world from selling photographs or films of street scenes in a city sounds a whole lot worse to me.
There's a big difference between selling reproductions of a specific artwork and photographing a scene that includes a work of art explicitly and intentionally placed in public view. I agree, the "we will reproduce this graffiti on your wall without compensating the original artist" business ought to be forbidden. As should the "we will directly copy the artwork used in your graffiti into a different medium and sell copies of it." This story is about neither.
posted by eotvos at 9:39 AM on March 17, 2018
« Older The Shield | Finland > Norway > ... > Canada > ... > USA > UK Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by AFABulous at 8:44 AM on March 15, 2018 [4 favorites]