|
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Happy Shopper on Mar 16, 2018 12:37:04 GMT 1, No they cant. if they would use a modern building as a feature they would need permission from the architect. And like I said before, H&M would not have used the same place to film etc if the graffiti was not there. Can you share an example of where this happened or where there was a dispute?
The Eiffel Tower at night (for some reason) is one place I've heard of this applying. Not sure we have any buildings in the UK that need permission.
EDIT: Check out the PASSING OFF section here (which I think is similar to this case with Revok!), also the part about the image of a building possibly being registered in the NEW 'ICONIC' BUILDINGS section.
filmlondon.org.uk/filming-buildings
And I just found this list of registered buildings (amazing Google isn't it!)
helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html
No they cant. if they would use a modern building as a feature they would need permission from the architect. And like I said before, H&M would not have used the same place to film etc if the graffiti was not there. Can you share an example of where this happened or where there was a dispute? The Eiffel Tower at night (for some reason) is one place I've heard of this applying. Not sure we have any buildings in the UK that need permission. EDIT: Check out the PASSING OFF section here (which I think is similar to this case with Revok!), also the part about the image of a building possibly being registered in the NEW 'ICONIC' BUILDINGS section. filmlondon.org.uk/filming-buildingsAnd I just found this list of registered buildings (amazing Google isn't it!) helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html |
|
kideight
New Member
🗨️ 42
👍🏻 55
October 2017
|
H&M v. Revok, by kideight on Mar 16, 2018 13:29:10 GMT 1, Can you share an example of where this happened or where there was a dispute? The Eiffel Tower at night (for some reason) is one place I've heard of this applying. Not sure we have any buildings in the UK that need permission. EDIT: Check out the PASSING OFF section here (which I think is similar to this case with Revok!), also the part about the image of a building possibly being registered in the NEW 'ICONIC' BUILDINGS section. filmlondon.org.uk/filming-buildingsAnd I just found this list of registered buildings (amazing Google isn't it!) helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html
upload image album
Can you share an example of where this happened or where there was a dispute? The Eiffel Tower at night (for some reason) is one place I've heard of this applying. Not sure we have any buildings in the UK that need permission. EDIT: Check out the PASSING OFF section here (which I think is similar to this case with Revok!), also the part about the image of a building possibly being registered in the NEW 'ICONIC' BUILDINGS section. filmlondon.org.uk/filming-buildingsAnd I just found this list of registered buildings (amazing Google isn't it!) helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html |
|
pippyt75
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,010
👍🏻 1,265
March 2015
|
H&M v. Revok, by pippyt75 on Mar 16, 2018 13:39:45 GMT 1, Luckily I haven’t been able to fit into H&M clothes for many years. I just hope High and Mighty don’t pull a similar stunt!
Luckily I haven’t been able to fit into H&M clothes for many years. I just hope High and Mighty don’t pull a similar stunt!
|
|
poofly
New Member
🗨️ 490
👍🏻 352
September 2006
|
H&M v. Revok, by poofly on Mar 16, 2018 13:41:00 GMT 1, H&M could have chosen any wall to shoot against, they decided to shoot against a wall covered in graffiti, so it's fair to say then that there were creating an advert using the aesthetic created by the artist.
A company of this size will no doubt be conversant in the commissioning of artists work and all the legal administration that that incurs, they knew what they were doing. set of c*nts
H&M could have chosen any wall to shoot against, they decided to shoot against a wall covered in graffiti, so it's fair to say then that there were creating an advert using the aesthetic created by the artist.
A company of this size will no doubt be conversant in the commissioning of artists work and all the legal administration that that incurs, they knew what they were doing. set of c*nts
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
H&M v. Revok, by Dive Jedi on Mar 16, 2018 14:25:18 GMT 1, Hayden Kays
Hayden Kays |
|
|
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Rouen Cathedral on Mar 16, 2018 15:27:12 GMT 1, H&M could have chosen any wall to shoot against, they decided to shoot against a wall covered in graffiti, so it's fair to say then that there were creating an advert using the aesthetic created by the artist. A company of this size will no doubt be conversant in the commissioning of artists work and all the legal administration that that incurs, they knew what they were doing. set of c*nts
So if it we're just the blank wall. Could the concrete worker come back and sue them claiming they deserve compensation?
H&M could have chosen any wall to shoot against, they decided to shoot against a wall covered in graffiti, so it's fair to say then that there were creating an advert using the aesthetic created by the artist. A company of this size will no doubt be conversant in the commissioning of artists work and all the legal administration that that incurs, they knew what they were doing. set of c*nts So if it we're just the blank wall. Could the concrete worker come back and sue them claiming they deserve compensation? |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by The True Cubs Fan on Mar 16, 2018 18:38:25 GMT 1,
So far my favorite response to this whole affair by OG Slick in LA
So far my favorite response to this whole affair by OG Slick in LA |
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Peter Bengtsen on Mar 16, 2018 18:43:50 GMT 1, Utah and Ether:  ---------------------------------------------- Read more about The Street Art World----------------------------------------------
Utah and Ether: ---------------------------------------------- Read more about The Street Art World---------------------------------------------- |
|
dreadnatty
Junior Member
🗨️ 5,431
👍🏻 6,992
February 2013
|
H&M v. Revok, by dreadnatty on Mar 16, 2018 19:12:52 GMT 1,
|
|
sonmi451
New Member
🗨️ 182
👍🏻 317
August 2016
|
H&M v. Revok, by sonmi451 on Mar 16, 2018 19:18:55 GMT 1, Good point... but still love me some Revok
Good point... but still love me some Revok |
|
Inknart
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,490
👍🏻 3,288
April 2015
|
H&M v. Revok, by Inknart on Mar 16, 2018 19:20:35 GMT 1, This made me laugh. Thank you.
This made me laugh. Thank you. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
|
|
|
|
H&M v. Revok, by Rouen Cathedral on Apr 3, 2018 0:21:48 GMT 1, I think spirograph has a case against him.
I think spirograph has a case against him.
|
|
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
H&M v. Revok, by moron on Apr 4, 2018 21:36:34 GMT 1, I think Revok is being immature. He painted on a wall without permission and now thinks he owns the wall and the environment around the artwork. Why shouldn't people take selfies in front of it or companies use it as a background for their product.
His artwork is copyrighted as usual but putting art on walls outside illegally doesn't give him any right about who can take photos or film the wall etc and have to ask his permission. The law could be clarified easily that people who put art on walls illegally put it in the public domain.
I think Revok is being immature. He painted on a wall without permission and now thinks he owns the wall and the environment around the artwork. Why shouldn't people take selfies in front of it or companies use it as a background for their product.
His artwork is copyrighted as usual but putting art on walls outside illegally doesn't give him any right about who can take photos or film the wall etc and have to ask his permission. The law could be clarified easily that people who put art on walls illegally put it in the public domain.
|
|
kaimac
New Member
🗨️ 328
👍🏻 263
October 2013
|
H&M v. Revok, by kaimac on Apr 21, 2018 14:37:02 GMT 1,
He owns his copyright. The issue is commercial use. His work is being used for commerical gain by H&M, and copyright law is very clear.
If he can prove that H&M knowingly used his work for commercial gain then he has a case. But either way, as I understand it, Williams simply sent them a cease and desist, and they responded by suing him. Standard aggressive corporate practice.
He is within his rights to be pissed. H&M used his work in a way that clearly implied it was an official partnership. The fact that his work was not authorized is not relevant.
He owns his copyright. The issue is commercial use. His work is being used for commerical gain by H&M, and copyright law is very clear.
If he can prove that H&M knowingly used his work for commercial gain then he has a case. But either way, as I understand it, Williams simply sent them a cease and desist, and they responded by suing him. Standard aggressive corporate practice.
He is within his rights to be pissed. H&M used his work in a way that clearly implied it was an official partnership. The fact that his work was not authorized is not relevant.
|
|
