Amber Halo
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 554
๐๐ป 625
April 2013
|
H&M v. Revok, by Amber Halo on Mar 14, 2018 17:33:50 GMT 1, Of interest...
http://instagr.am/p/BgS2mLVDmKW
hypebeast.com/2018/3/hm-revok-copyright-infringement-case
H&M Files Lawsuit Against Graffiti Artist, Denies Copyright Protection
After using artist REVOKโs work in a recent campaign.
By Keith Estiler/Mar 12, 2018/Arts
H&M has entered a legal dispute with artist Jason โREVOKโ Williams over the copyright usage of his work in a recent advertising campaign. The campaign features imagery as well as videos of a male model clad in the retailerโs โNew Routineโ sportswear line while in front of a wall with Williamsโs graffiti painted on it. The wall is located at the William Sheridan Playground handball court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
In a cease and desist letter sent to H&M this past January 8, Williamsโs lawyer expressed that the fast fashion giantโs โunauthorized use of his [Willaims] original artwork, and the manner in which it is using the work, is damaging and is likely to cause consumers familiar with his work to believe there is a relationship between the parties,โ HYPEBEAST has learned. Ultimately, the letter goes on to urge H&M to โimmediately ceaseโ Williamsโs work from the campaign because they argue that it is an act of copyright infringement.
Today, H&M fired back at Williams and his counsel in a letter with a lawsuit expressing, โUnder the circumstances, in which your clientโs claimed โart workโ is the product of criminal conduct, Mr. Williams has no copyright rights to assert,โ expressed the retailer. โThe entitlement to copyright protection is a privilege under federal law that does not extend to illegally created works.โ
In that same letter, H&M expressed that it apparently hired an outside production agency to capture the campaign at the handball court. Moreover, the production agency had presumably inquired with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDP) to see whether or not they need the permission of the artist responsible for creating the mural on the wall. The NYCDP ostensibly said that the โgraffiti on the park handball wall was unauthorized and constituted vandalism and defacing of New York City property.โ
There is still ongoing debate on whether or not unsanctioned street art is protected by U.S. copyright laws. Under existing law, a work immediately receives protection if it is an โoriginal work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,โ as stated in 17 U.S.C. ยง 102(a).
This isnโt the first time Williams took on a fashion brand for allegedly stealing his work. In 2015, REVOK alongside fellow artists Reyes and Steel sued Roberto Cavalli for copyright infringement.
Stay tuned for more details on the case.
Of interest... http://instagr.am/p/BgS2mLVDmKW
hypebeast.com/2018/3/hm-revok-copyright-infringement-case
H&M Files Lawsuit Against Graffiti Artist, Denies Copyright Protection
After using artist REVOKโs work in a recent campaign.
By Keith Estiler/Mar 12, 2018/Arts
H&M has entered a legal dispute with artist Jason โREVOKโ Williams over the copyright usage of his work in a recent advertising campaign. The campaign features imagery as well as videos of a male model clad in the retailerโs โNew Routineโ sportswear line while in front of a wall with Williamsโs graffiti painted on it. The wall is located at the William Sheridan Playground handball court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
In a cease and desist letter sent to H&M this past January 8, Williamsโs lawyer expressed that the fast fashion giantโs โunauthorized use of his [Willaims] original artwork, and the manner in which it is using the work, is damaging and is likely to cause consumers familiar with his work to believe there is a relationship between the parties,โ HYPEBEAST has learned. Ultimately, the letter goes on to urge H&M to โimmediately ceaseโ Williamsโs work from the campaign because they argue that it is an act of copyright infringement.
Today, H&M fired back at Williams and his counsel in a letter with a lawsuit expressing, โUnder the circumstances, in which your clientโs claimed โart workโ is the product of criminal conduct, Mr. Williams has no copyright rights to assert,โ expressed the retailer. โThe entitlement to copyright protection is a privilege under federal law that does not extend to illegally created works.โ
In that same letter, H&M expressed that it apparently hired an outside production agency to capture the campaign at the handball court. Moreover, the production agency had presumably inquired with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDP) to see whether or not they need the permission of the artist responsible for creating the mural on the wall. The NYCDP ostensibly said that the โgraffiti on the park handball wall was unauthorized and constituted vandalism and defacing of New York City property.โ
There is still ongoing debate on whether or not unsanctioned street art is protected by U.S. copyright laws. Under existing law, a work immediately receives protection if it is an โoriginal work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,โ as stated in 17 U.S.C. ยง 102(a).
This isnโt the first time Williams took on a fashion brand for allegedly stealing his work. In 2015, REVOK alongside fellow artists Reyes and Steel sued Roberto Cavalli for copyright infringement.
Stay tuned for more details on the case.
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
H&M v. Revok, by Fake on Mar 14, 2018 17:54:45 GMT 1, So did the H&M boycott almost every artist is posting rightnow come from this?
So did the H&M boycott almost every artist is posting rightnow come from this?
|
|
stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by stelio on Mar 14, 2018 18:01:34 GMT 1, Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally.
Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally.
|
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Coach on Mar 14, 2018 18:03:20 GMT 1, Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally.
Personally, and looking at it from a purely ethical point of view, not a legal one, I think he (and we) can be, where itโs being used for commercial purposes.
Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally. Personally, and looking at it from a purely ethical point of view, not a legal one, I think he (and we) can be, where itโs being used for commercial purposes. |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Coach on Mar 14, 2018 18:03:50 GMT 1, So did the H&M boycott almost every artist is posting rightnow come from this?
Yes.
So did the H&M boycott almost every artist is posting rightnow come from this? Yes. |
|
stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by stelio on Mar 14, 2018 18:21:15 GMT 1, Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally. Personally, and looking at it from a purely ethical point of view, not a legal one, I think he (and we) can be, where itโs being used for commercial purposes.
Ive always considered street art public domain, especially when done on public property. Had it been on a private property or if had been commissioned by the city then sure HM would be in the wrong here.
Morally though Iโll agree its a little in the grey area.
Revok will probably lose here. Canโt be mad if someone uses a mural you painted illegally. Personally, and looking at it from a purely ethical point of view, not a legal one, I think he (and we) can be, where itโs being used for commercial purposes. Ive always considered street art public domain, especially when done on public property. Had it been on a private property or if had been commissioned by the city then sure HM would be in the wrong here. Morally though Iโll agree its a little in the grey area. |
|
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 4,464
๐๐ป 4,762
March 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by WOOF on Mar 14, 2018 18:36:34 GMT 1, Not a lawyer, but this lawsuit could be especially damaging as it will create precedence for future cases. If this was a sanctioned mural, it'd be one thing, but it wasn't and he knew that.
Not sure what the end game here is, besides getting press.
Not a lawyer, but this lawsuit could be especially damaging as it will create precedence for future cases. If this was a sanctioned mural, it'd be one thing, but it wasn't and he knew that.
Not sure what the end game here is, besides getting press.
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
H&M v. Revok, by Fake on Mar 14, 2018 18:39:45 GMT 1, I bet tonight some stores will be Defaced with a copyright symbol!
I bet tonight some stores will be Defaced with a copyright symbol!
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,190
๐๐ป 8,545
May 2011
|
H&M v. Revok, by iamzero on Mar 14, 2018 18:43:51 GMT 1, I assumed when I first read the viral message that was being regramโd that they used his artwork on some clothing so was fully behind him. But learning that he doesnโt want his art in their promotional shots Iโm on the fence with it. I know local graff artist that love it when theyโve made the news or a tv show, I remember having my stuff making it to the local paper once for reasons that I probably shouldnโt be proud of but I was made up... notoriety. I see the paradox of wanting to be noticed when no one knows who you are and then shunning the publicity when youโve made it and become a bit picky on how you want to be seen. Strange one. If itโs in the public domain surely you canโt moan when youโve opened Pandoraโs box and let you stuff go into the wild.
I assumed when I first read the viral message that was being regramโd that they used his artwork on some clothing so was fully behind him. But learning that he doesnโt want his art in their promotional shots Iโm on the fence with it. I know local graff artist that love it when theyโve made the news or a tv show, I remember having my stuff making it to the local paper once for reasons that I probably shouldnโt be proud of but I was made up... notoriety. I see the paradox of wanting to be noticed when no one knows who you are and then shunning the publicity when youโve made it and become a bit picky on how you want to be seen. Strange one. If itโs in the public domain surely you canโt moan when youโve opened Pandoraโs box and let you stuff go into the wild.
|
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Happy Shopper on Mar 14, 2018 18:46:29 GMT 1, That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time.
Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases?
That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time.
Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases?
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,050
๐๐ป 961
January 2018
|
H&M v. Revok, by rebate on Mar 14, 2018 18:46:55 GMT 1, Something tells me this is going to be the most expensive "2 wrongs don't make a right" that H&M have ever been involved in.
There is no legal hope that they are going to win this. They will be told that they can already prosecute artists for using their walls, and that they have no rights whatsoever over the artwork, unlike the artist, who has full artists rights backing them up.
Just H&M being money backed arseholes. The law will disagree with them and jog them on.
Something tells me this is going to be the most expensive "2 wrongs don't make a right" that H&M have ever been involved in.
There is no legal hope that they are going to win this. They will be told that they can already prosecute artists for using their walls, and that they have no rights whatsoever over the artwork, unlike the artist, who has full artists rights backing them up.
Just H&M being money backed arseholes. The law will disagree with them and jog them on.
|
|
|
|
stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by stelio on Mar 14, 2018 18:53:01 GMT 1, If someone illegally paints a perfectly rendered Micky Mouse and Disney logo on a wall, could H&M use a pic of that wall in an advertising campaign? My guess is no. The act is illegal, but the artwork is not. Then again, greed knows no bounds.
Micky Mouse is trademarked legally. Revoks mural was/is not. Thatโs the big difference in your example.
If someone illegally paints a perfectly rendered Micky Mouse and Disney logo on a wall, could H&M use a pic of that wall in an advertising campaign? My guess is no. The act is illegal, but the artwork is not. Then again, greed knows no bounds. Micky Mouse is trademarked legally. Revoks mural was/is not. Thatโs the big difference in your example. |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Cookiemonster on Mar 14, 2018 18:56:32 GMT 1, Irrespective if the works are done by entering in to a contract or not, the artist will still have protection under copyright and authorship (unless they themselves copied from someone else and as such not the original author). They have the right to prevent their works being re-enacted by others without their consent and for commercial gain.
Copyright exists for the entire lifetime of the artist, plus 50-70 years after death (depending on territory). H&M would be entering in to sticky grounds if they re-perform an artists works without consent, as they are effectively claiming ownership and will be falsely denying the actual artist true authorship.
Any artist that takes exception to the H&M claim should, rather then asking for a boycott, should be contesting this case in the courts or at the very least asking the courts to dismiss this case and asking for a protection of their copyright.
Irrespective if the works are done by entering in to a contract or not, the artist will still have protection under copyright and authorship (unless they themselves copied from someone else and as such not the original author). They have the right to prevent their works being re-enacted by others without their consent and for commercial gain.
Copyright exists for the entire lifetime of the artist, plus 50-70 years after death (depending on territory). H&M would be entering in to sticky grounds if they re-perform an artists works without consent, as they are effectively claiming ownership and will be falsely denying the actual artist true authorship.
Any artist that takes exception to the H&M claim should, rather then asking for a boycott, should be contesting this case in the courts or at the very least asking the courts to dismiss this case and asking for a protection of their copyright.
|
|
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,050
๐๐ป 961
January 2018
|
Some phone company did the same to Stik, they lost too. |
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
H&M v. Revok, by Fake on Mar 14, 2018 19:43:57 GMT 1, That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time. Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases?
But this is a global company how are using modern slaves to make the garments they sell. Those garments are often covered with stolen designs that make the courts a second home for H&M around the globe. And now they want to have all street art for free to use as they see fit. Fuck them
That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time. Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases? But this is a global company how are using modern slaves to make the garments they sell. Those garments are often covered with stolen designs that make the courts a second home for H&M around the globe. And now they want to have all street art for free to use as they see fit. Fuck them |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Coach on Mar 14, 2018 19:47:45 GMT 1, That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time. Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases?
The lawsuit asks the court to state that the artist has no rights over the work whatsoever. The slippery slope argument applies. This time it might just be a model walking past some street art. But next time it could be the artwork printed on shirts, socks and pants. And to all intents and purposes, it will look like the product maker designed the image. This is why I think what is requested is ethically wrong.
That's a really hard one... printed on T-Shirts would clearly be wrong, but filming in front of a trendy mural! Fashion brands/bloggers/magazines do that all the time. Revok's work is heavily featured in this shoot though, and does look like an association with the brand... but how would that be enforced in the future, in more subtle cases? The lawsuit asks the court to state that the artist has no rights over the work whatsoever. The slippery slope argument applies. This time it might just be a model walking past some street art. But next time it could be the artwork printed on shirts, socks and pants. And to all intents and purposes, it will look like the product maker designed the image. This is why I think what is requested is ethically wrong. |
|
stelio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 391
๐๐ป 555
May 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by stelio on Mar 14, 2018 20:12:41 GMT 1,
With american eagle they actually paid an airtst to recreate the mural and used the art on thier website. Different and more blatant than H&M.
Vince camuto case they stole the image and put it on T shirts to sell.
And with 5 points it was done on a private building and then painted over. The building was destoryed later too and even the judge said it wouldnt of been a big deal if it had not been painted over a year prior to the building coming down.
These examples in my eyes are completely differnet than want happened here. This was a mural on Pubilc property that the city already said was done illeaglly and they considered vandalism.
Look, Iโm not an advocate of companies screwing over artist at all. I just think in this particular case the artist doesnโt have much of case to win. Although part of me kinda hopes Iโm wrong.
With american eagle they actually paid an airtst to recreate the mural and used the art on thier website. Different and more blatant than H&M. Vince camuto case they stole the image and put it on T shirts to sell. And with 5 points it was done on a private building and then painted over. The building was destoryed later too and even the judge said it wouldnt of been a big deal if it had not been painted over a year prior to the building coming down. These examples in my eyes are completely differnet than want happened here. This was a mural on Pubilc property that the city already said was done illeaglly and they considered vandalism. Look, Iโm not an advocate of companies screwing over artist at all. I just think in this particular case the artist doesnโt have much of case to win. Although part of me kinda hopes Iโm wrong. |
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
|
|
Amber Halo
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 554
๐๐ป 625
April 2013
|
H&M v. Revok, by Amber Halo on Mar 14, 2018 20:27:01 GMT 1, With american eagle they actually paid an airtst to recreate the mural and used the art on thier website. Different and more blatant than H&M. Vince camuto case they stole the image and put it on T shirts to sell. And with 5 points it was done on a private building and then painted over. The building was destoryed later too and even the judge said it wouldnt of been a big deal if it had not been painted over a year prior to the building coming down. These examples in my eyes are completely differnet than want happened here. This was a mural on Pubilc property that the city already said was done illeaglly and they considered vandalism. Look, Iโm not an advocate of companies screwing over artist at all. I just think in this particular case the artist doesnโt have much of case to win. Although part of me kinda hopes Iโm wrong. I think these are some fair points Stelio. As an old lawyer, this particular situation strikes me as a bit more nuanced and less cut-and-dried than some other similar (but different) Corporation v. Artist situations.
What I am intrigued with is that all of the clever arguments us lawyers are paid to come up with, might not mean a damn thing in a "big picture" sense if the public outcry is so loud. The power of the people (read: consumer), is indeed a very real power.
Of course, if this case results in an issued published/binding court opinion... well, that obviously can have a very meaningful and long-lasting impact as legal precedent on other cases in the US of a similar ilk.
With american eagle they actually paid an airtst to recreate the mural and used the art on thier website. Different and more blatant than H&M. Vince camuto case they stole the image and put it on T shirts to sell. And with 5 points it was done on a private building and then painted over. The building was destoryed later too and even the judge said it wouldnt of been a big deal if it had not been painted over a year prior to the building coming down. These examples in my eyes are completely differnet than want happened here. This was a mural on Pubilc property that the city already said was done illeaglly and they considered vandalism. Look, Iโm not an advocate of companies screwing over artist at all. I just think in this particular case the artist doesnโt have much of case to win. Although part of me kinda hopes Iโm wrong. I think these are some fair points Stelio. As an old lawyer, this particular situation strikes me as a bit more nuanced and less cut-and-dried than some other similar (but different) Corporation v. Artist situations.
What I am intrigued with is that all of the clever arguments us lawyers are paid to come up with, might not mean a damn thing in a "big picture" sense if the public outcry is so loud. The power of the people (read: consumer), is indeed a very real power.
Of course, if this case results in an issued published/binding court opinion... well, that obviously can have a very meaningful and long-lasting impact as legal precedent on other cases in the US of a similar ilk.
|
|
Amber Halo
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 554
๐๐ป 625
April 2013
|
|
|
elberto77
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 355
๐๐ป 641
October 2017
|
H&M v. Revok, by elberto77 on Mar 14, 2018 21:58:17 GMT 1, They would be better off spending all that money on artists instead of on lawyers.... soulless corporation trying to steal street credibility. Never worked and never will imo
They would be better off spending all that money on artists instead of on lawyers.... soulless corporation trying to steal street credibility. Never worked and never will imo
|
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
H&M v. Revok, by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 22:15:55 GMT 1,
|
|
mmmike
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,421
๐๐ป 759
March 2010
|
H&M v. Revok, by mmmike on Mar 15, 2018 3:52:19 GMT 1, First the racist shit and now this. With this one it sounds like H&M just really wants some free art. Maybe artists will help out and give them lots of free art inside their stores, on their merchandise, walls and fixtures.
First the racist shit and now this. With this one it sounds like H&M just really wants some free art. Maybe artists will help out and give them lots of free art inside their stores, on their merchandise, walls and fixtures.
|
|
thomasmer
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,107
๐๐ป 565
July 2014
|
H&M v. Revok, by thomasmer on Mar 15, 2018 4:16:52 GMT 1, This is so ugly its unbelievable.
This is so ugly its unbelievable.
|
|
Aubrey 245
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,291
๐๐ป 732
September 2017
|
H&M v. Revok, by Aubrey 245 on Mar 15, 2018 7:49:14 GMT 1, H&M is a shame.
"the production agency had presumably inquired with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDP) to see whether or not they need the permission of the artist responsible for creating the mural on the wall"
Why not contact the artist himself before the shoot and "ask" for permission / or even a kind of cooperation?
I've seen Conor Harrington repost it, I hope some more artists with a bigger reach would do so as well..
H&M is a shame.
"the production agency had presumably inquired with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDP) to see whether or not they need the permission of the artist responsible for creating the mural on the wall"
Why not contact the artist himself before the shoot and "ask" for permission / or even a kind of cooperation?
I've seen Conor Harrington repost it, I hope some more artists with a bigger reach would do so as well..
|
|
jayTown
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,738
๐๐ป 1,213
February 2013
|
H&M v. Revok, by jayTown on Mar 15, 2018 8:43:59 GMT 1, Itโs a tough one.
What if the land is owned privately and the owners rely on the income it generates through private hire (for things like shoots). Theyโll ultimately end up losing out because someone illegally tagged on it?
Itโs a tough one.
What if the land is owned privately and the owners rely on the income it generates through private hire (for things like shoots). Theyโll ultimately end up losing out because someone illegally tagged on it?
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
H&M v. Revok, by Fake on Mar 15, 2018 9:21:54 GMT 1, Itโs a tough one. What if the land is owned privately and the owners rely on the income it generates through private hire (for things like shoots). Theyโll ultimately end up losing out because someone illegally tagged on it?
Itโs a tough one. What if the land is owned privately and the owners rely on the income it generates through private hire (for things like shoots). Theyโll ultimately end up losing out because someone illegally tagged on it? It is an easy one. H&M would not have done the shoot if the graffiti was not there. Simple! |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Cookiemonster on Mar 15, 2018 11:21:47 GMT 1, Case apparantly has been withdrawn by H&M.
Case apparantly has been withdrawn by H&M.
|
|
b1470
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 124
๐๐ป 47
May 2010
|
H&M v. Revok, by b1470 on Mar 15, 2018 11:41:13 GMT 1, Corporations donโt value artist/art. I remember this happened to an up and coming artist that was ripped off by another mass producer clothing company. They produced an undeniable copy of the original artwork/item for sale. I donโt believe she got anything after legal fees and everything was said and done. Big company has more money and litigation dept โน๏ธ
Corporations donโt value artist/art. I remember this happened to an up and coming artist that was ripped off by another mass producer clothing company. They produced an undeniable copy of the original artwork/item for sale. I donโt believe she got anything after legal fees and everything was said and done. Big company has more money and litigation dept โน๏ธ
|
|
