irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Jul 22, 2018 16:11:39 GMT 1, From its inception, graffiti’s legal status as art has been blurry, but a case coming before a federal judge in California later this month may help bring it into focus. In January, Swiss graffiti artist Adrian Falkner (who signs his work “SMASH 137”) filed a lawsuit against General Motors after a mural he had painted in 2014 on a Detroit parking garage was featured prominently in a 2016 advertising campaign for the Cadillac XT5 dubbed “The Art of the Drive.” GM deployed the campaign across several of its social media platforms without ever consulting Falkner or seeking his permission to do so. In their complaint, Falkner and his attorneys allege that the campaign constitutes copyright infringement and “damages [Falkner’s] reputation, especially because he has carefully and selectively approached any association with corporate culture and mass-market consumerism.”
Indeed, Falkner’s mural—which was commissioned by the owner of the parking garage—would appear to be subject to the same copyright protections as any work of contemporary art. However, late last month, GM filed a motion for summary judgment that hinges on an attempt to define the mural as a work that is incorporated into a building and thus subject to laws governing photographs of architectural works rather than artworks. “Because [Falkner’s] mural is painted onto an architectural work it falls squarely within the ‘pictorial representation exemption,” the GM motion states, referring to to code 120 of copyright statute 17. To that end, the motion concluded, “his copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.”
In their own motion opposing GM’s motion for summary judgment, filed earlier this month, Falkner and his attorneys take issue with the automaker’s “architectural work” defense. The mural, they argue, has no significant relationship to the architecture on which it was painted, which in turn has no significant architectural features. “[The mural] was conceived of after the parking structure was built, has no relationship to the architecture, and plays no functional role,” their July 2 motion states. “Its only relation to the architecture of the parking garage is that it is on an elevator shed.” The stakes of the case, which is scheduled for a hearing on July 23 in Los Angeles, are potentially very far-reaching. “Indeed, if GM’s view prevailed,” Falkner’s motion states, “all graffiti art that exists on a building—that is, most graffiti art—would suddenly be unprotected by copyright.”
From its inception, graffiti’s legal status as art has been blurry, but a case coming before a federal judge in California later this month may help bring it into focus. In January, Swiss graffiti artist Adrian Falkner (who signs his work “SMASH 137”) filed a lawsuit against General Motors after a mural he had painted in 2014 on a Detroit parking garage was featured prominently in a 2016 advertising campaign for the Cadillac XT5 dubbed “The Art of the Drive.” GM deployed the campaign across several of its social media platforms without ever consulting Falkner or seeking his permission to do so. In their complaint, Falkner and his attorneys allege that the campaign constitutes copyright infringement and “damages [Falkner’s] reputation, especially because he has carefully and selectively approached any association with corporate culture and mass-market consumerism.”
Indeed, Falkner’s mural—which was commissioned by the owner of the parking garage—would appear to be subject to the same copyright protections as any work of contemporary art. However, late last month, GM filed a motion for summary judgment that hinges on an attempt to define the mural as a work that is incorporated into a building and thus subject to laws governing photographs of architectural works rather than artworks. “Because [Falkner’s] mural is painted onto an architectural work it falls squarely within the ‘pictorial representation exemption,” the GM motion states, referring to to code 120 of copyright statute 17. To that end, the motion concluded, “his copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.”
In their own motion opposing GM’s motion for summary judgment, filed earlier this month, Falkner and his attorneys take issue with the automaker’s “architectural work” defense. The mural, they argue, has no significant relationship to the architecture on which it was painted, which in turn has no significant architectural features. “[The mural] was conceived of after the parking structure was built, has no relationship to the architecture, and plays no functional role,” their July 2 motion states. “Its only relation to the architecture of the parking garage is that it is on an elevator shed.” The stakes of the case, which is scheduled for a hearing on July 23 in Los Angeles, are potentially very far-reaching. “Indeed, if GM’s view prevailed,” Falkner’s motion states, “all graffiti art that exists on a building—that is, most graffiti art—would suddenly be unprotected by copyright.”
|
|
GMA
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,962
👍🏻 2,994
October 2015
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by GMA on Jul 22, 2018 16:21:48 GMT 1, It'll be the usual story, big corporate company uses muscle to push the little guy out of the way. If anything, it was probably produced by an advertising agency on the companies roster, they would have given them concepts to choose from. Sometimes it falls on the advertising agency to get the right permission to use certain graphics. It'll be interesting to see what the outcome is but I don't hold out much hope for the artist.
It'll be the usual story, big corporate company uses muscle to push the little guy out of the way. If anything, it was probably produced by an advertising agency on the companies roster, they would have given them concepts to choose from. Sometimes it falls on the advertising agency to get the right permission to use certain graphics. It'll be interesting to see what the outcome is but I don't hold out much hope for the artist.
|
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Poly Mindset on Jul 22, 2018 16:52:37 GMT 1, From its inception, graffiti’s legal status as art has been blurry, but a case coming before a federal judge in California later this month may help bring it into focus. In January, Swiss graffiti artist Adrian Falkner (who signs his work “SMASH 137”) filed a lawsuit against General Motors after a mural he had painted in 2014 on a Detroit parking garage was featured prominently in a 2016 advertising campaign for the Cadillac XT5 dubbed “The Art of the Drive.” GM deployed the campaign across several of its social media platforms without ever consulting Falkner or seeking his permission to do so. In their complaint, Falkner and his attorneys allege that the campaign constitutes copyright infringement and “damages [Falkner’s] reputation, especially because he has carefully and selectively approached any association with corporate culture and mass-market consumerism.” Indeed, Falkner’s mural—which was commissioned by the owner of the parking garage—would appear to be subject to the same copyright protections as any work of contemporary art. However, late last month, GM filed a motion for summary judgment that hinges on an attempt to define the mural as a work that is incorporated into a building and thus subject to laws governing photographs of architectural works rather than artworks. “Because [Falkner’s] mural is painted onto an architectural work it falls squarely within the ‘pictorial representation exemption,” the GM motion states, referring to to code 120 of copyright statute 17. To that end, the motion concluded, “his copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.” In their own motion opposing GM’s motion for summary judgment, filed earlier this month, Falkner and his attorneys take issue with the automaker’s “architectural work” defense. The mural, they argue, has no significant relationship to the architecture on which it was painted, which in turn has no significant architectural features. “[The mural] was conceived of after the parking structure was built, has no relationship to the architecture, and plays no functional role,” their July 2 motion states. “Its only relation to the architecture of the parking garage is that it is on an elevator shed.” The stakes of the case, which is scheduled for a hearing on July 23 in Los Angeles, are potentially very far-reaching. “Indeed, if GM’s view prevailed,” Falkner’s motion states, “all graffiti art that exists on a building—that is, most graffiti art—would suddenly be unprotected by copyright.”
From its inception, graffiti’s legal status as art has been blurry, but a case coming before a federal judge in California later this month may help bring it into focus. In January, Swiss graffiti artist Adrian Falkner (who signs his work “SMASH 137”) filed a lawsuit against General Motors after a mural he had painted in 2014 on a Detroit parking garage was featured prominently in a 2016 advertising campaign for the Cadillac XT5 dubbed “The Art of the Drive.” GM deployed the campaign across several of its social media platforms without ever consulting Falkner or seeking his permission to do so. In their complaint, Falkner and his attorneys allege that the campaign constitutes copyright infringement and “damages [Falkner’s] reputation, especially because he has carefully and selectively approached any association with corporate culture and mass-market consumerism.” Indeed, Falkner’s mural—which was commissioned by the owner of the parking garage—would appear to be subject to the same copyright protections as any work of contemporary art. However, late last month, GM filed a motion for summary judgment that hinges on an attempt to define the mural as a work that is incorporated into a building and thus subject to laws governing photographs of architectural works rather than artworks. “Because [Falkner’s] mural is painted onto an architectural work it falls squarely within the ‘pictorial representation exemption,” the GM motion states, referring to to code 120 of copyright statute 17. To that end, the motion concluded, “his copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.” In their own motion opposing GM’s motion for summary judgment, filed earlier this month, Falkner and his attorneys take issue with the automaker’s “architectural work” defense. The mural, they argue, has no significant relationship to the architecture on which it was painted, which in turn has no significant architectural features. “[The mural] was conceived of after the parking structure was built, has no relationship to the architecture, and plays no functional role,” their July 2 motion states. “Its only relation to the architecture of the parking garage is that it is on an elevator shed.” The stakes of the case, which is scheduled for a hearing on July 23 in Los Angeles, are potentially very far-reaching. “Indeed, if GM’s view prevailed,” Falkner’s motion states, “all graffiti art that exists on a building—that is, most graffiti art—would suddenly be unprotected by copyright.” Thank you for posting this. My question would be, if the mural was commissioned doesn't it then become the property of the owner of the building/parking garage? The murals that Banksy has done on walls and door have been cut out and sold by the owners of the walls and door for big money. I understand that Banksy would have to come forward to pursue any kind of lawsuit regarding ownership and obviously his murals weren't used by a corporation for advertising but it is a relative point with regards to ownership. This is very interesting on a personal level because I as well as more than a few members I'm sure have commissioned pieces. If somebody has a commissioned piece does the artist still own the rights to the image? |
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Jul 22, 2018 19:51:55 GMT 1, This is very interesting on a personal level because I as well as more than a few members I'm sure have commissioned pieces. If somebody has a commissioned piece does the artist still own the rights to the image? Yes.
This court case is starting tomorrow, so one to keep an eye on.
This is very interesting on a personal level because I as well as more than a few members I'm sure have commissioned pieces. If somebody has a commissioned piece does the artist still own the rights to the image? Yes. Yes your right there and as far as i know, if the artist was to pass away the family (estate) own the copy rights for another 70 years. This court case is starting tomorrow, so one to keep an eye on. |
|
shy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,590
👍🏻 646
June 2018
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by shy on Jul 22, 2018 21:22:26 GMT 1, thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant!
thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant!
|
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by JL Broooks on Jul 22, 2018 21:25:59 GMT 1, Ahhh..there’s nothing like logging in to UAA and see that Shy has the last post on at least the 10 most recent threads. Good times.
Ahhh..there’s nothing like logging in to UAA and see that Shy has the last post on at least the 10 most recent threads. Good times.
|
|
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Dive Jedi on Jul 22, 2018 21:28:52 GMT 1, thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant!
thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant! thank you for posting this… this is very uninteresting and totally irrelevant! |
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,191
👍🏻 3,722
May 2014
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by mojo on Jul 22, 2018 22:46:02 GMT 1, thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant! Unlike each and every single one of your utterly banal and platitudinous posts. 
thank you for posting this...this is very interesting and relevant! Unlike each and every single one of your utterly banal and platitudinous posts. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by moron on Jul 23, 2018 18:56:51 GMT 1, It's an interesting dilemma. Is it just an artist looking for an opportunity to get a large payout from a big business?
The way I see it is that the artist painted the art legally on the wall for the building owner. The art looks a bit abstract. The car company decided to use the building with the art as a back ground for their big shiny new car.
I read the signature of the artist was removed for the car ad and also read that the signature has not been removed it's around the side of the building which doe snot show in the photo.
It used to be that artists would muralise and decorate walls and be happy when seeing their art in the background shots of films or in magazines. Nww it's all about money and copyright.
The art is copyrighted and done legally so I would guess that the car company should have contacted the artist, plus who knows whether the photographer just turned up with the car and took the pics, or actually spoke to the building owner before hand.
I'm wondering if for example some people walked past wearing Burberry or Gucci etc etc and were included in the photos, would the car company have had to ask Burberry or Gucci for permission?
It's an interesting dilemma. Is it just an artist looking for an opportunity to get a large payout from a big business?
The way I see it is that the artist painted the art legally on the wall for the building owner. The art looks a bit abstract. The car company decided to use the building with the art as a back ground for their big shiny new car.
I read the signature of the artist was removed for the car ad and also read that the signature has not been removed it's around the side of the building which doe snot show in the photo.
It used to be that artists would muralise and decorate walls and be happy when seeing their art in the background shots of films or in magazines. Nww it's all about money and copyright.
The art is copyrighted and done legally so I would guess that the car company should have contacted the artist, plus who knows whether the photographer just turned up with the car and took the pics, or actually spoke to the building owner before hand.
I'm wondering if for example some people walked past wearing Burberry or Gucci etc etc and were included in the photos, would the car company have had to ask Burberry or Gucci for permission?
|
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Howard Johnson on Jul 23, 2018 20:02:29 GMT 1, As the resident UAA legal scholar I can attest that if the judge is sane, GM will lose, easily. Copyright only requires 1) Original artwork that is 2) Fix in a tangible medium of expression. Even this post is copyrighted because its "original" and "fixed" on the website so that y'all can read it.
Copyright is actually a "bundle" of rights. Pertinent here are the exclusive right to display, right of reproduction, the right to create derivative works, and the right to distribute. Here, it seems like GM displayed the work in the ads, reproduced the work in the ads, arguable created a derivative by adding text/images, and distributed the work in different mediums. Its just a matter of damages, which would probably be whatever the market rate is for image licenses of this nature.
Easy win for this artist, and good on him for enforcing his rights. #merica'
As the resident UAA legal scholar I can attest that if the judge is sane, GM will lose, easily. Copyright only requires 1) Original artwork that is 2) Fix in a tangible medium of expression. Even this post is copyrighted because its "original" and "fixed" on the website so that y'all can read it.
Copyright is actually a "bundle" of rights. Pertinent here are the exclusive right to display, right of reproduction, the right to create derivative works, and the right to distribute. Here, it seems like GM displayed the work in the ads, reproduced the work in the ads, arguable created a derivative by adding text/images, and distributed the work in different mediums. Its just a matter of damages, which would probably be whatever the market rate is for image licenses of this nature.
Easy win for this artist, and good on him for enforcing his rights. #merica'
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by moron on Jul 23, 2018 20:19:57 GMT 1, GM were advertising the car in an urban environment. It's normal for there to be buildings outside near roads and today it's quite common to see decorated buildings and murals on walls. Should people who go for a walk and take a photo of a street or buildings that happens to have a mural on the building ask permission from the artist before they can post the photo on their blog or facebook page etc?
How about statues and outdoor sculptures, by the likes of Henry Moore etc or Anish Kapoor. What if a person or business wants to use the statues as part of the back ground for showing off their products in an advert?
Kaws made a living from riding off the backs of brand names and also slapped his name onto adverts of well know fashion brands.
I think the artist might get a judgement in his favour as he was commissioned to decorate the building by the building owner although I don't know if the artist had a clause with the building owner regarding peoples photographing the building and what they did with the photos afterwards.
Regarding art that is painted on walls and buildings illegally, for sure art is copyrighted but should the person who painted on a wall illegally then have the right to tell people they cannot photograph the building or street and use the photo as they wish? Personally if they paint illegally they can fuck right off regarding people photographing the art and using it as they want in the context of the art on a building or wall as part of a photographic image depicting whatever or whoever is in front of that wall.
GM were advertising the car in an urban environment. It's normal for there to be buildings outside near roads and today it's quite common to see decorated buildings and murals on walls. Should people who go for a walk and take a photo of a street or buildings that happens to have a mural on the building ask permission from the artist before they can post the photo on their blog or facebook page etc?
How about statues and outdoor sculptures, by the likes of Henry Moore etc or Anish Kapoor. What if a person or business wants to use the statues as part of the back ground for showing off their products in an advert?
Kaws made a living from riding off the backs of brand names and also slapped his name onto adverts of well know fashion brands.
I think the artist might get a judgement in his favour as he was commissioned to decorate the building by the building owner although I don't know if the artist had a clause with the building owner regarding peoples photographing the building and what they did with the photos afterwards.
Regarding art that is painted on walls and buildings illegally, for sure art is copyrighted but should the person who painted on a wall illegally then have the right to tell people they cannot photograph the building or street and use the photo as they wish? Personally if they paint illegally they can fuck right off regarding people photographing the art and using it as they want in the context of the art on a building or wall as part of a photographic image depicting whatever or whoever is in front of that wall.
|
|
daveart
New Member
🗨️ 940
👍🏻 885
February 2008
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by daveart on Jul 23, 2018 21:29:51 GMT 1, As the resident UAA legal scholar I can attest that if the judge is sane, GM will lose, easily. Copyright only requires 1) Original artwork that is 2) Fix in a tangible medium of expression. Even this post is copyrighted because its "original" and "fixed" on the website so that y'all can read it. Copyright is actually a "bundle" of rights. Pertinent here are the exclusive right to display, right of reproduction, the right to create derivative works, and the right to distribute. Here, it seems like GM displayed the work in the ads, reproduced the work in the ads, arguable created a derivative by adding text/images, and distributed the work in different mediums. Its just a matter of damages, which would probably be whatever the market rate is for image licenses of this nature. Easy win for this artist, and good on him for enforcing his rights. #merica'
not in any way going to protect GM and i'll assume they can handle themselves. However to me it raises a questions - Many artists from Warhol on down to kaws, brainwash, banksy, etc have used corporate logos/images in their artwork and sold it on as their own copyrighted work. this case is selling cars which can never be confused for art and the art is not incorporated into the car or coopted by the car in any way - it simply resides in the background. on the other side, artists are taking art and literally incorporating it into other art and calling it their own. it seems to be in many cases the artists are behaving more poorly than the corporations.. the artist put art in a public space and then cries when it is actually seen in the background selling a different type of product ? i see their position but not the harm. i find this a bit strange so the question is - on what ground do artists incorporate corporate logos/images into their work without facing recourse - and why do people rally around artist when it reverses ?
As the resident UAA legal scholar I can attest that if the judge is sane, GM will lose, easily. Copyright only requires 1) Original artwork that is 2) Fix in a tangible medium of expression. Even this post is copyrighted because its "original" and "fixed" on the website so that y'all can read it. Copyright is actually a "bundle" of rights. Pertinent here are the exclusive right to display, right of reproduction, the right to create derivative works, and the right to distribute. Here, it seems like GM displayed the work in the ads, reproduced the work in the ads, arguable created a derivative by adding text/images, and distributed the work in different mediums. Its just a matter of damages, which would probably be whatever the market rate is for image licenses of this nature. Easy win for this artist, and good on him for enforcing his rights. #merica'
not in any way going to protect GM and i'll assume they can handle themselves. However to me it raises a questions - Many artists from Warhol on down to kaws, brainwash, banksy, etc have used corporate logos/images in their artwork and sold it on as their own copyrighted work. this case is selling cars which can never be confused for art and the art is not incorporated into the car or coopted by the car in any way - it simply resides in the background. on the other side, artists are taking art and literally incorporating it into other art and calling it their own. it seems to be in many cases the artists are behaving more poorly than the corporations.. the artist put art in a public space and then cries when it is actually seen in the background selling a different type of product ? i see their position but not the harm. i find this a bit strange so the question is - on what ground do artists incorporate corporate logos/images into their work without facing recourse - and why do people rally around artist when it reverses ?
|
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Howard Johnson on Jul 23, 2018 21:36:05 GMT 1, Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated.
Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated.
Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
|
|
daveart
New Member
🗨️ 940
👍🏻 885
February 2008
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by daveart on Jul 23, 2018 21:51:23 GMT 1, Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
isnt this a bit worrisome at some point as cities put up more and more murals.. is to stand in front of something and take a picture "to use it(the art)" - i would argue the car is the central figure in the campaign? this personally feels flimsy on the artists part and they actually incorporate so much corporate art into their pieces i cant see the pain they are actually having over this when art is simply in the background.. hate to be a travel brochure company with all the public art going up.. every photograph is a potential lawsuit.. eesh.. well anyway, no one's going to worry about my thoughts .. was just curious.
Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
isnt this a bit worrisome at some point as cities put up more and more murals.. is to stand in front of something and take a picture "to use it(the art)" - i would argue the car is the central figure in the campaign? this personally feels flimsy on the artists part and they actually incorporate so much corporate art into their pieces i cant see the pain they are actually having over this when art is simply in the background.. hate to be a travel brochure company with all the public art going up.. every photograph is a potential lawsuit.. eesh.. well anyway, no one's going to worry about my thoughts .. was just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Howard Johnson on Jul 23, 2018 22:03:42 GMT 1, Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
isnt this a bit worrisome at some point as cities put up more and more murals.. is to stand in front of something and take a picture "to use it(the art)" - i would argue the car is the central figure in the campaign? this personally feels flimsy on the artists part and they actually incorporate so much corporate art into their pieces i cant see the pain they are actually having over this when art is simply in the background.. hate to be a travel brochure company with all the public art going up.. every photograph is a potential lawsuit.. eesh.. well anyway, no one's going to worry about my thoughts .. was just curious.
Yup, you've identified the singular most disruptive issue with the current copyright act. It simply doesn't account for the internet or any of the technology developed because of it.So you get a lot of wonky outcomes that dont logically add up. There will be a new copyright act in the near future that will hopefully address these issues, but to address your hypothetical specifically, yes if someone was so inclined they could sue over every little infraction just like you laid out. It would be a massive waste of money (its currently $435 to just file a complaint in Los Angeles).
Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...
isnt this a bit worrisome at some point as cities put up more and more murals.. is to stand in front of something and take a picture "to use it(the art)" - i would argue the car is the central figure in the campaign? this personally feels flimsy on the artists part and they actually incorporate so much corporate art into their pieces i cant see the pain they are actually having over this when art is simply in the background.. hate to be a travel brochure company with all the public art going up.. every photograph is a potential lawsuit.. eesh.. well anyway, no one's going to worry about my thoughts .. was just curious.
Yup, you've identified the singular most disruptive issue with the current copyright act. It simply doesn't account for the internet or any of the technology developed because of it.So you get a lot of wonky outcomes that dont logically add up. There will be a new copyright act in the near future that will hopefully address these issues, but to address your hypothetical specifically, yes if someone was so inclined they could sue over every little infraction just like you laid out. It would be a massive waste of money (its currently $435 to just file a complaint in Los Angeles). |
|
jettad
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,057
👍🏻 902
October 2011
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by jettad on Jul 24, 2018 0:10:55 GMT 1, moron - I think the issue here is that the image taken was used commercially, where using the mural as part of the image, it is being used to sell the car.. If I took a picture of a piece of artwork and put it on Instagram, facebook etc. That isn't used commercially and so is fine with the copyright laws.
I am a 'stock' photographer and shoot commercial images. I cannot, and will not, shoot any image that has identifying marks, logos, artwork etc. We often do truck and car shoots, we spend approximately 1-4 hours on each image selected in post to remove all logos etc. It is a huge pain in the arse. We have to be very careful about copyrighted things, for example, we can't show an iPhone's Home button, a tee shirt design can be an issue if either we didn't design it ourselves (which we have done), or if we didn't get the artist/designers permission. Can't shoot certain watches, the Coca-Cola bottle, any sort of superhero (Marvel and DC are terrible for lawsuits), the Nike 'swoosh', and so it goes on. Why do you think almost all stock photos are really quite bland.
Here is a list (partial) of things we have to be careful of shooting
helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html
moron - I think the issue here is that the image taken was used commercially, where using the mural as part of the image, it is being used to sell the car.. If I took a picture of a piece of artwork and put it on Instagram, facebook etc. That isn't used commercially and so is fine with the copyright laws. I am a 'stock' photographer and shoot commercial images. I cannot, and will not, shoot any image that has identifying marks, logos, artwork etc. We often do truck and car shoots, we spend approximately 1-4 hours on each image selected in post to remove all logos etc. It is a huge pain in the arse. We have to be very careful about copyrighted things, for example, we can't show an iPhone's Home button, a tee shirt design can be an issue if either we didn't design it ourselves (which we have done), or if we didn't get the artist/designers permission. Can't shoot certain watches, the Coca-Cola bottle, any sort of superhero (Marvel and DC are terrible for lawsuits), the Nike 'swoosh', and so it goes on. Why do you think almost all stock photos are really quite bland. Here is a list ( partial) of things we have to be careful of shooting helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by moron on Jul 25, 2018 17:52:28 GMT 1, moron - I think the issue here is that the image taken was used commercially, where using the mural as part of the image, it is being used to sell the car.. If I took a picture of a piece of artwork and put it on Instagram, facebook etc. That isn't used commercially and so is fine with the copyright laws. I am a 'stock' photographer and shoot commercial images. I cannot, and will not, shoot any image that has identifying marks, logos, artwork etc. We often do truck and car shoots, we spend approximately 1-4 hours on each image selected in post to remove all logos etc. It is a huge pain in the arse. We have to be very careful about copyrighted things, for example, we can't show an iPhone's Home button, a tee shirt design can be an issue if either we didn't design it ourselves (which we have done), or if we didn't get the artist/designers permission. Can't shoot certain watches, the Coca-Cola bottle, any sort of superhero (Marvel and DC are terrible for lawsuits), the Nike 'swoosh', and so it goes on. Why do you think almost all stock photos are really quite bland. Here is a list ( partial) of things we have to be careful of shooting helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html
So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM?
Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram?
I think the court case depends on how truthful the artist is in court and on how good GM's lawyer is.
"Plaintiff Adrian Falkner (“Falkner” or “Plaintiff”) hereby complains against
Defendants General Motors Company (“GM”); and Does 1-10 inclusive
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) as follows."
www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA114075125.PDF
3. In November of 2016, General Motors’ marquee car brand Cadillac
inexplicably featured the Mural as the centerpiece of a marketing campaign
launching the new Cadillac XT5 (the “Campaign”)
My own opinion is that the cadillac was the centerpiece not the building or the art.
4. Defendants’ exploitation of Plaintiff’s work damages his reputation,
My view is that it does not damage his reputation
5. Plaintiff brings this straightforward copyright infringement claim for
misappropriation of his original graphic expression. Because Defendants’ also
deliberately removed Plaintiff’s signature from the advertisements,
My own view is that the art is graffiti art in context and the graphic expression in the photo has not changed.
I have read that, allledgedly the signature has not been removed but on the other side of the building
25. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct as alleged herein, Cadillac has
enjoyed substantial revenue. Publicly available information reveals that in the
United States alone, approximately 13,000 Cadillac XT5 vehicles were sold during
November and December 2016 resulting in an estimated $500,000,000 in revenue.
26. Plaintiff has sustained significant injury and monetary damages as a
result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as alleged in this Complaint, including
reputational damage and diminishment of the value of his work.
Plaintiff is at
present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages he has suffered
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’
alleged conduct was, and continues to be, intentional, deliberate, willful, wanton, committed with the intention of injuring Plaintiff, and depriving Plaintiff of
Plaintiff’s legal rights; was, and is, despicable conduct that subjects Plaintiff to a
cruel and unjust hardship; and was, and continues to be, undertaken with oppression,
fraud and malice.
I can hear the violins playing as I read this.
45. Plaintiff has sustained significant injury and monetary damages as a
result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is at present
unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages they have suffered by
reason of said acts. In order to determine the full extent of such damages, including such profits of Defendant as may be recoverable
Plaintiff requires an accounting from each Defendant of all monies generated
My own view is he doesn't know how much injury and financial damage he has suffered untill he knows how much profit GM made from the advert.
Surely he should know allready how much damage he has suffered?
moron - I think the issue here is that the image taken was used commercially, where using the mural as part of the image, it is being used to sell the car.. If I took a picture of a piece of artwork and put it on Instagram, facebook etc. That isn't used commercially and so is fine with the copyright laws. I am a 'stock' photographer and shoot commercial images. I cannot, and will not, shoot any image that has identifying marks, logos, artwork etc. We often do truck and car shoots, we spend approximately 1-4 hours on each image selected in post to remove all logos etc. It is a huge pain in the arse. We have to be very careful about copyrighted things, for example, we can't show an iPhone's Home button, a tee shirt design can be an issue if either we didn't design it ourselves (which we have done), or if we didn't get the artist/designers permission. Can't shoot certain watches, the Coca-Cola bottle, any sort of superhero (Marvel and DC are terrible for lawsuits), the Nike 'swoosh', and so it goes on. Why do you think almost all stock photos are really quite bland. Here is a list ( partial) of things we have to be careful of shooting helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html It's certainly a minefield out there for professional photographers. So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM? Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram? I think the court case depends on how truthful the artist is in court and on how good GM's lawyer is. "Plaintiff Adrian Falkner (“Falkner” or “Plaintiff”) hereby complains against
Defendants General Motors Company (“GM”); and Does 1-10 inclusive
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) as follows."www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA114075125.PDF3. In November of 2016, General Motors’ marquee car brand Cadillac
inexplicably featured the Mural as the centerpiece of a marketing campaign
launching the new Cadillac XT5 (the “Campaign”) My own opinion is that the cadillac was the centerpiece not the building or the art. 4. Defendants’ exploitation of Plaintiff’s work damages his reputation, My view is that it does not damage his reputation 5. Plaintiff brings this straightforward copyright infringement claim for
misappropriation of his original graphic expression. Because Defendants’ also
deliberately removed Plaintiff’s signature from the advertisements, My own view is that the art is graffiti art in context and the graphic expression in the photo has not changed. I have read that, allledgedly the signature has not been removed but on the other side of the building 25. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct as alleged herein, Cadillac has
enjoyed substantial revenue. Publicly available information reveals that in the
United States alone, approximately 13,000 Cadillac XT5 vehicles were sold during
November and December 2016 resulting in an estimated $500,000,000 in revenue.
26. Plaintiff has sustained significant injury and monetary damages as a
result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as alleged in this Complaint, including
reputational damage and diminishment of the value of his work.
Plaintiff is at
present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages he has suffered 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’
alleged conduct was, and continues to be, intentional, deliberate, willful, wanton, committed with the intention of injuring Plaintiff, and depriving Plaintiff of
Plaintiff’s legal rights; was, and is, despicable conduct that subjects Plaintiff to a
cruel and unjust hardship; and was, and continues to be, undertaken with oppression,
fraud and malice. I can hear the violins playing as I read this. 45. Plaintiff has sustained significant injury and monetary damages as a
result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is at present
unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages they have suffered by
reason of said acts. In order to determine the full extent of such damages, including such profits of Defendant as may be recoverable
Plaintiff requires an accounting from each Defendant of all monies generated
My own view is he doesn't know how much injury and financial damage he has suffered untill he knows how much profit GM made from the advert. Surely he should know allready how much damage he has suffered? |
|
jettad
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,057
👍🏻 902
October 2011
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by jettad on Jul 25, 2018 18:17:12 GMT 1, It's certainly a minefield out there for professional photographers. So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM? Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram?
Those would most likely fall into editorial use. The Kim K usage could possibly fall into commercial, but I believe instagram, facebook etc, are classed as editorial - don't quote me on that, unless specifically that account is a brand, for example, GM's instagram account, - which Kim K is in my opinion! No releases or permissions are needed. But this is a grey area that hopefully will be resolved soon in the courts.
I often hear clients say that photographers sometimes don't need paying for their images because the exposure of millions of people seeing their work would be enough. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. Exposure will not pay for my mortgage, put food on the table for me or my kids, or put money into my bank account. It just doesn't.
It's certainly a minefield out there for professional photographers. So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM? Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram? Those would most likely fall into editorial use. The Kim K usage could possibly fall into commercial, but I believe instagram, facebook etc, are classed as editorial - don't quote me on that, unless specifically that account is a brand, for example, GM's instagram account, - which Kim K is in my opinion! No releases or permissions are needed. But this is a grey area that hopefully will be resolved soon in the courts. I often hear clients say that photographers sometimes don't need paying for their images because the exposure of millions of people seeing their work would be enough. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. Exposure will not pay for my mortgage, put food on the table for me or my kids, or put money into my bank account. It just doesn't. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by moron on Jul 25, 2018 18:23:09 GMT 1, It's certainly a minefield out there for professional photographers. So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM? Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram? Those would most likely fall into editorial use. The Kim K usage could possibly fall into commercial, but I believe instagram, facebook etc, are classed as editorial - don't quote me on that, unless specifically that account is a brand, for example, GM's instagram account, - which Kim K is in my opinion! No releases or permissions are needed. But this is a grey area that hopefully will be resolved soon in the courts. I often hear clients say that photographers sometimes don't need paying for their images because the exposure of millions of people seeing their work would be enough. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. Exposure will not pay for my mortgage, put food on the table for me or my kids, or put money into my bank account. It just doesn't.
It's certainly a minefield out there for professional photographers. So for example if there was say an active shooter standing outside the same building and a photographer or person with a camera happened to be there and took photos and then sold photos to news agencies or let news sites use the photos commercially. If the artists sued because his graffy art was featured in the photos would he have the same case as he does against GM? Or say Kim K who is a big business herself took a selfie standing in front of the same building and posted it on her instgram with like a hundred billion zillion followers. Would the artists have a case or would teh artist be an idiot if he decided to take K K to court considering the uge number of people that would see his art on KK's instagram? Those would most likely fall into editorial use. The Kim K usage could possibly fall into commercial, but I believe instagram, facebook etc, are classed as editorial - don't quote me on that, unless specifically that account is a brand, for example, GM's instagram account, - which Kim K is in my opinion! No releases or permissions are needed. But this is a grey area that hopefully will be resolved soon in the courts. I often hear clients say that photographers sometimes don't need paying for their images because the exposure of millions of people seeing their work would be enough. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. Exposure will not pay for my mortgage, put food on the table for me or my kids, or put money into my bank account. It just doesn't. As a photographer, if you created a photo and an urban artist just made a photoshop stencil from it and then sold prints on that image would you be offended because of the laziness and lack of effort and creativity or would it make no difference and the point would be that the person just took your photo and used and changed it without asking permission? |
|
jettad
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,057
👍🏻 902
October 2011
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by jettad on Jul 25, 2018 18:53:06 GMT 1, As a photographer, if you created a photo and an urban artist just made a photoshop stencil from it and then sold prints on that image would you be offended because of the laziness and lack of effort and creativity or would it make no difference and the point would be that the person just took your photo and used and changed it without asking permission?
Legally, I'm not sure there would be anything I could do, although Shepard Fairey may have something to say about that.
As a photographer, if you created a photo and an urban artist just made a photoshop stencil from it and then sold prints on that image would you be offended because of the laziness and lack of effort and creativity or would it make no difference and the point would be that the person just took your photo and used and changed it without asking permission? I'll be honest and say I'd be pissed. It would also depend on the image. A picture of my kids and I would not be a happy person, a picture of a tree maybe I'd contact the artist and see if I could get a print. But this is different than the GM's case, they didn't alter anything about the mural. Legally, I'm not sure there would be anything I could do, although Shepard Fairey may have something to say about that. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by moron on Jul 25, 2018 19:11:10 GMT 1, As a photographer, if you created a photo and an urban artist just made a photoshop stencil from it and then sold prints on that image would you be offended because of the laziness and lack of effort and creativity or would it make no difference and the point would be that the person just took your photo and used and changed it without asking permission? I'll be honest and say I'd be pissed. It would also depend on the image. A picture of my kids and I would not be a happy person, a picture of a tree maybe I'd contact the artist and see if I could get a print. But this is different than the GM's case, they didn't alter anything about the mural. Legally, I'm not sure there would be anything I could do, although Shepard Fairey may have something to say about that.
One case i thought interesting was the US Post Office used an image of part of the face of the statue of liberty on a stamp, then had to pay out 3.5 million dollars because it was a photo of the face of Liberty created by a sculptor for a Las Vagas casino and had to pay the artist who sculpted the statue.
As a photographer, if you created a photo and an urban artist just made a photoshop stencil from it and then sold prints on that image would you be offended because of the laziness and lack of effort and creativity or would it make no difference and the point would be that the person just took your photo and used and changed it without asking permission? I'll be honest and say I'd be pissed. It would also depend on the image. A picture of my kids and I would not be a happy person, a picture of a tree maybe I'd contact the artist and see if I could get a print. But this is different than the GM's case, they didn't alter anything about the mural. Legally, I'm not sure there would be anything I could do, although Shepard Fairey may have something to say about that. Fairey lost his court case regarding the Obama photo. One case i thought interesting was the US Post Office used an image of part of the face of the statue of liberty on a stamp, then had to pay out 3.5 million dollars because it was a photo of the face of Liberty created by a sculptor for a Las Vagas casino and had to pay the artist who sculpted the statue. |
|
jettad
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,057
👍🏻 902
October 2011
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by jettad on Jul 25, 2018 19:55:23 GMT 1, Fairey lost his court case regarding the Obama photo.
Yes he did, thankfully (speaking as a photographer). And yet Richard Prince gets away with it. That I don't understand. It drives me a little mad that he does.
The case with the statue of liberty image was interesting. It just goes to show how easy it is for a large corporation or government agency (or anyone really) to google something, see an image they like and take/use it, (or see a mural on a wall and take that too because it looks hip/cool).
Fairey lost his court case regarding the Obama photo. Yes he did, thankfully (speaking as a photographer). And yet Richard Prince gets away with it. That I don't understand. It drives me a little mad that he does. The case with the statue of liberty image was interesting. It just goes to show how easy it is for a large corporation or government agency (or anyone really) to google something, see an image they like and take/use it, (or see a mural on a wall and take that too because it looks hip/cool). |
|
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Jul 29, 2018 17:22:58 GMT 1, Elon Musk and artist Tom Edwards settled their copyright dispute over an image of a farting unicorn.
On Friday night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a series of emojis and a link to Colorado-based potter Tom Edwards’s personal blog. For those that have been following Edwards and Musk’s clash over the latter’s copyrighted image of a farting unicorn, the tweet was a white flag, signaling a truce between the two.
The feud started in February 2017, when Musk tweeted out, “maybe my favorite mug ever,” with a link to Edward’s mug, on which he’d painted a unicorn farting energy into a car. For Edwards, whose father and step father both worked in the aerospace and defense industries, the Tesla CEO’s admiration felt incredibly special––until he found out the company had used the image on their holiday cards and even inserted it into the Tesla’s operating system without his permission.
While the artist never wanted to sue Musk, he did contact a lawyer, who agreed that the usage overstepped copyright protections. What followed was something of a childish internet storm between Musk and the artist’s daughter. The Twitter battle ended with Musk offering to not use the image, followed with another tweet stating: “He can sue for money if he wants, but that’s kinda lame. If anything, this attention increased his mug sales.”
Despite the CEO’s nippy comment, Edwards did not sue for money; instead the two reached an undisclosed agreement. On Friday, Edward’s posted an entry to his blog titled, “Copyright Issue: RESOLVED!” The post did not give many details, but it did state:
I am happy to report that we have reached an agreement with Tesla that resolves our issues in a way that everyone feels good about! It’s clear there were some misunderstandings that led to this escalating, but I’m just glad that everything has been cleared up. I’ve always been a Tesla fan, and I’m looking forward to getting back to making pots and selling them in my online store.
Following this statement, Edwards plugged a new farting unicorn mural that will be going up near Tesla’s headquarters, in collaboration with Arts Bridging The Gap’s LA Street Art Initiative.
Elon Musk and artist Tom Edwards settled their copyright dispute over an image of a farting unicorn.
On Friday night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a series of emojis and a link to Colorado-based potter Tom Edwards’s personal blog. For those that have been following Edwards and Musk’s clash over the latter’s copyrighted image of a farting unicorn, the tweet was a white flag, signaling a truce between the two.
The feud started in February 2017, when Musk tweeted out, “maybe my favorite mug ever,” with a link to Edward’s mug, on which he’d painted a unicorn farting energy into a car. For Edwards, whose father and step father both worked in the aerospace and defense industries, the Tesla CEO’s admiration felt incredibly special––until he found out the company had used the image on their holiday cards and even inserted it into the Tesla’s operating system without his permission.
While the artist never wanted to sue Musk, he did contact a lawyer, who agreed that the usage overstepped copyright protections. What followed was something of a childish internet storm between Musk and the artist’s daughter. The Twitter battle ended with Musk offering to not use the image, followed with another tweet stating: “He can sue for money if he wants, but that’s kinda lame. If anything, this attention increased his mug sales.”
Despite the CEO’s nippy comment, Edwards did not sue for money; instead the two reached an undisclosed agreement. On Friday, Edward’s posted an entry to his blog titled, “Copyright Issue: RESOLVED!” The post did not give many details, but it did state:
I am happy to report that we have reached an agreement with Tesla that resolves our issues in a way that everyone feels good about! It’s clear there were some misunderstandings that led to this escalating, but I’m just glad that everything has been cleared up. I’ve always been a Tesla fan, and I’m looking forward to getting back to making pots and selling them in my online store.
Following this statement, Edwards plugged a new farting unicorn mural that will be going up near Tesla’s headquarters, in collaboration with Arts Bridging The Gap’s LA Street Art Initiative.
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Sept 20, 2018 20:40:03 GMT 1, Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal...  ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------
www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-federal-judge-cleared-way-graffiti-artists-lawsuit-general-motors-proceed
Legally has no effect on copyright. Technically artists could sue left and right for every mural or paste-up that's in an advert but it's not worth the time or money unless the art was a central feature of the campaign, which in turn provides the basis for the argument that the art has value, which is why the company used it in a commercial, and thus the artist should be compensated. Also tough to sue over an illegal work as you'd have to go on the record as a vandal... *** Update on this. Some good news for street artists *** --------------------------------------------------------------------- www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-federal-judge-cleared-way-graffiti-artists-lawsuit-general-motors-proceed |
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Sept 24, 2018 19:16:01 GMT 1, A photographer is suing Netflix over the alleged use of his work on “Stranger Things.
A storm could be brewing for Netflix, as a Montana photographer Sean R. Heavey has filed suit against the streaming giant, alleging that it stole his image of a cloud formation without payment or permission.
Heavey alleges a supercell he captured in 2010 was the inspiration for storm clouds featured in its hit original series, Stranger Things, as well as an original movie, How It Ends, that was loaded to Netflix in July 2018. The suit centers around concept art featured in an episode of Beyond Stranger Things—a behind-the-scenes look at how the show is created—which, according to Heavey, is a photo he took and titled The Mothership (2010).
Netflix attorney Jarin Jackson responded to Heavey’s copyright infringement claims by saying that the Stranger Things concept art is “not virtually identical.”
“The only similarity that exists between the artwork and Mr. Heavey’s photograph, The Mothership (the ‘Photo’), is the use of similar cloud formations,” Jackson told Heavey, according to a report in the Great Falls Tribune. “Copyright law, however, does not protect objects as they appear in nature.”
Heavey’s complaint focuses on the work he put into the photo. The image is “the result of numerous sequences of experimentation by Sean with various framing, exposure, shutter speed, and movement options,” his filing reads.
The lawsuit is seeking unspecified monetary damages for using the photo without permission, and also wants to block Netflix from placing the photo in its programming in the future.
A photographer is suing Netflix over the alleged use of his work on “Stranger Things.
A storm could be brewing for Netflix, as a Montana photographer Sean R. Heavey has filed suit against the streaming giant, alleging that it stole his image of a cloud formation without payment or permission.
Heavey alleges a supercell he captured in 2010 was the inspiration for storm clouds featured in its hit original series, Stranger Things, as well as an original movie, How It Ends, that was loaded to Netflix in July 2018. The suit centers around concept art featured in an episode of Beyond Stranger Things—a behind-the-scenes look at how the show is created—which, according to Heavey, is a photo he took and titled The Mothership (2010).
Netflix attorney Jarin Jackson responded to Heavey’s copyright infringement claims by saying that the Stranger Things concept art is “not virtually identical.”
“The only similarity that exists between the artwork and Mr. Heavey’s photograph, The Mothership (the ‘Photo’), is the use of similar cloud formations,” Jackson told Heavey, according to a report in the Great Falls Tribune. “Copyright law, however, does not protect objects as they appear in nature.”
Heavey’s complaint focuses on the work he put into the photo. The image is “the result of numerous sequences of experimentation by Sean with various framing, exposure, shutter speed, and movement options,” his filing reads.
The lawsuit is seeking unspecified monetary damages for using the photo without permission, and also wants to block Netflix from placing the photo in its programming in the future.
|
|
mose
New Member
🗨️ 410
👍🏻 424
May 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by mose on Sept 24, 2018 21:56:18 GMT 1, Thanks for sharing the information about the Netflix lawsuit. Copyright law is fascinating.
This article goes into more depth exploring the suit: petapixel.com/2018/09/18/photographer-sues-netflix-for-using-his-storm-photo-for-stranger-things/
Personally, while they are similar and I wouldnt' doubt at all that the original photo was a heavy inspiration for the Netflix artwork, I don't really see the artist's case (but, I am no lawyer).
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by irl1 on Sept 25, 2018 17:58:13 GMT 1, I would like to see what happens in both cases.
I would like to see what happens in both cases. |
|
|
|
Copyright protection of graffiti art, by Happy Shopper on Sept 25, 2018 18:04:55 GMT 1,
If you look at the bottom of the clouds around the central "opening", and what looks like rain falling from it, you can see his photograph has been directly used and photoshopped.
EDIT: Just noticed it says the photo was only used in concept art... so not a commercial use. No money was made from it. It was really only used for reference. I don't know what he can claim for either!?
If you look at the bottom of the clouds around the central "opening", and what looks like rain falling from it, you can see his photograph has been directly used and photoshopped. EDIT: Just noticed it says the photo was only used in concept art... so not a commercial use. No money was made from it. It was really only used for reference. I don't know what he can claim for either!? |
|
***
