rebate
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,050
Likes โข 961
January 2018
|
That brand does it regularly!
|
|
GMA
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 2,994
October 2015
|
|
|
Inknart
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,486
Likes โข 3,288
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by Inknart on Mar 26, 2019 16:25:13 GMT 1, Wow, seriously. Maybe they could have gotten away with the blurring, but honestly the drips solidify this as complete plagiarism.
Wow, seriously. Maybe they could have gotten away with the blurring, but honestly the drips solidify this as complete plagiarism.
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,458
Likes โข 4,753
March 2014
|
look familiar!, by WOOF on Mar 26, 2019 19:40:25 GMT 1, I make ads like this for a living.
This is clear plagiarism, and I 100% agree with Inknart that the final spray with drips seals the deal for me.
I make ads like this for a living. This is clear plagiarism, and I 100% agree with Inknart that the final spray with drips seals the deal for me.
|
|
vei
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,757
Likes โข 889
February 2013
|
look familiar!, by vei on Mar 26, 2019 20:00:37 GMT 1, Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative.
Not plagiarism
Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view?
Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative.
Not plagiarism
Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view?
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,458
Likes โข 4,753
March 2014
|
look familiar!, by WOOF on Mar 26, 2019 20:08:43 GMT 1, Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism.
But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off.
Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism. But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off.
|
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,380
Likes โข 2,371
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by coller on Mar 26, 2019 20:12:52 GMT 1, what is this plagiarizing?
what is this plagiarizing?
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,458
Likes โข 4,753
March 2014
|
look familiar!, by WOOF on Mar 26, 2019 20:15:45 GMT 1, what is this plagiarizing? Miaz bros, right down the cheeky one bit of overspray that drips.
what is this plagiarizing? Miaz bros, right down the cheeky one bit of overspray that drips.
|
|
vei
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,757
Likes โข 889
February 2013
|
look familiar!, by vei on Mar 26, 2019 20:17:23 GMT 1, Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism. But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off.
My view was as plagiarism in the legal definition, itโs clearly a copied style.
It makes me smile, as a marketer I wouldnโt use it. I donโt think it fits the brand.
Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism. But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off. My view was as plagiarism in the legal definition, itโs clearly a copied style. It makes me smile, as a marketer I wouldnโt use it. I donโt think it fits the brand.
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,458
Likes โข 4,753
March 2014
|
look familiar!, by WOOF on Mar 26, 2019 20:35:16 GMT 1, To be fair, I'm not even sure "plagiarism" is a legal term. I wonder if this would fall under copyright infringement.
To be fair, I'm not even sure "plagiarism" is a legal term. I wonder if this would fall under copyright infringement.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,380
Likes โข 2,371
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by coller on Mar 26, 2019 20:39:46 GMT 1, what is this plagiarizing? Miaz bros, right down the cheeky one bit of overspray that drips. I retract my previous statement. Miaz bros have a lawsuit there.
what is this plagiarizing? Miaz bros, right down the cheeky one bit of overspray that drips. I retract my previous statement. Miaz bros have a lawsuit there.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,380
Likes โข 2,371
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by coller on Mar 26, 2019 20:48:04 GMT 1, also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright.
the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation.
and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court.
also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright.
the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation.
and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court.
|
|
|
vei
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,757
Likes โข 889
February 2013
|
look familiar!, by vei on Mar 26, 2019 21:20:42 GMT 1, Probably a legal term for the written word, I think Robin Thicke was sued for plagiarising a Marvin Gaye song.
Probably a legal term for the written word, I think Robin Thicke was sued for plagiarising a Marvin Gaye song.
|
|
|
mack
New Member
Posts โข 288
Likes โข 179
July 2018
|
look familiar!, by mack on Mar 26, 2019 21:24:52 GMT 1, Is it a specific image or just the "blurr"-style we are discussing?
Is it a specific image or just the "blurr"-style we are discussing?
|
|
|
look familiar!, by Happy Shopper on Mar 26, 2019 21:46:12 GMT 1, Is it a specific image or just the "blurr"-style we are discussing?
Blurred style with dripping paint.
Is it a specific image or just the "blurr"-style we are discussing? Blurred style with dripping paint.
|
|
mutatis
New Member
Posts โข 671
Likes โข 492
July 2013
|
look familiar!, by mutatis on Mar 26, 2019 21:56:27 GMT 1, also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright. the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation. and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court. If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not.
also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright. the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation. and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court. If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not.
|
|
mutatis
New Member
Posts โข 671
Likes โข 492
July 2013
|
look familiar!, by mutatis on Mar 26, 2019 22:05:26 GMT 1, Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism. But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off. Copying an idea and copying the expression of an idea are two separate things. The latter is potentially actionable as copyright infringement, the former is not and may be a question of ethics, depending on the prevalent practice of the day.
Iโve worked in Marketing and used a few ad agencies for creative. Not plagiarism Any legal bods with the correct specialist knowledge have a view? Not legally plagiarism. But a good creative would never put that forward because it's a clear rip off. Copying an idea and copying the expression of an idea are two separate things. The latter is potentially actionable as copyright infringement, the former is not and may be a question of ethics, depending on the prevalent practice of the day.
|
|
mack
New Member
Posts โข 288
Likes โข 179
July 2018
|
look familiar!, by mack on Mar 26, 2019 22:27:27 GMT 1, Have to agree with mutatis You would give them the rights to every blurry image out there. Since it's not close to the same motive there's not much of a case. It is just us (people into a very niched style of art) who draw the parallel between these two.
Have to agree with mutatis You would give them the rights to every blurry image out there. Since it's not close to the same motive there's not much of a case. It is just us (people into a very niched style of art) who draw the parallel between these two.
|
|
Amber Halo
New Member
Posts โข 554
Likes โข 625
April 2013
|
look familiar!, by Amber Halo on Mar 26, 2019 22:35:14 GMT 1, The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists.
The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,380
Likes โข 2,371
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by coller on Mar 26, 2019 22:40:49 GMT 1, also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright. the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation. and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court. If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not. not what i'm suggesting at all, but appreciate your minimalist/broad stroke analysis of complex legal issues.
the brand in question isn't 'blurred imagery,' it is the Miaz Brothers style of art, which involves more than simple blurred imagery.
not saying Miaz Bros would win the case, but also not saying they would lose.
McD's should've left out the paint drips and gone with a more digital blur, might've ended up saving them some legal fees. we'll see what happens.
also re: legality, i think this would fall more under trademark/source confusion than copyright. the issue would be that someone looking at this ad would think and/or be of the impression that the Miaz Bros participated in the ad campaign or support McDonald's as a corporation. and, in my opinion, the artists would have a decent chance in court. If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not. not what i'm suggesting at all, but appreciate your minimalist/broad stroke analysis of complex legal issues. the brand in question isn't 'blurred imagery,' it is the Miaz Brothers style of art, which involves more than simple blurred imagery. not saying Miaz Bros would win the case, but also not saying they would lose. McD's should've left out the paint drips and gone with a more digital blur, might've ended up saving them some legal fees. we'll see what happens.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,380
Likes โข 2,371
April 2015
|
look familiar!, by coller on Mar 26, 2019 22:42:23 GMT 1, and there is no possible copyright claim here whatsoever, this is not in the legal arena of copyright. unless the miaz bros have made paintings of mcdonalds cheeseburgers and french fries that i am unaware of
IP Law 101: ocpatentlawyer.com/four-types-intellectual-property-protect-idea/
|
|
|
mutatis
New Member
Posts โข 671
Likes โข 492
July 2013
|
look familiar!, by mutatis on Mar 26, 2019 23:20:42 GMT 1, If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not. not what i'm suggesting at all, but appreciate your minimalist/broad stroke analysis of complex legal issues. the brand in question isn't 'blurred imagery,' it is the Miaz Brothers style of art, which involves more than simple blurred imagery. not saying Miaz Bros would win the case, but also not saying they would lose. McD's should've left out the paint drips and gone with a more digital blur, might've ended up saving them some legal fees. we'll see what happens. It's not really a complex legal issue, but it is the type of issue that inspires hearty debate on these forums. Your suggestion of this being a trade mark / source confusion issue, suggested to me that you were implying that a brand had been misappropriated - because that's one of the essential functions of a trade mark to guarantee the source of origin of goods. So forgive me for mischaracterising your argument.
We can all agree that it is a "style" that has been copied - but whose "style"? Does any one artist own that "style" such that they have a legal cause of action (win or lose)? How would you define the style? Where does the style begin and end and does it encompass the paint drips too? What exactly is the cause of action here?
Earlier on in the thread you asked what it was plagiarising. The answer came back - the Miaz Brothers - you could have been directed further back in time to the works of other artists that have used such style ...
If that were the case you are in effect suggesting that "blurred imagery" is a brand and the source is only identifiable with the Miaz Bros. So every blurred image advertising goods is associated with, connected to, or endorsed by the Miaz Bros? That would be a wide range of monopoly to grant. In this instance, I think not. not what i'm suggesting at all, but appreciate your minimalist/broad stroke analysis of complex legal issues. the brand in question isn't 'blurred imagery,' it is the Miaz Brothers style of art, which involves more than simple blurred imagery. not saying Miaz Bros would win the case, but also not saying they would lose. McD's should've left out the paint drips and gone with a more digital blur, might've ended up saving them some legal fees. we'll see what happens. It's not really a complex legal issue, but it is the type of issue that inspires hearty debate on these forums. Your suggestion of this being a trade mark / source confusion issue, suggested to me that you were implying that a brand had been misappropriated - because that's one of the essential functions of a trade mark to guarantee the source of origin of goods. So forgive me for mischaracterising your argument.
We can all agree that it is a "style" that has been copied - but whose "style"? Does any one artist own that "style" such that they have a legal cause of action (win or lose)? How would you define the style? Where does the style begin and end and does it encompass the paint drips too? What exactly is the cause of action here?
Earlier on in the thread you asked what it was plagiarising. The answer came back - the Miaz Brothers - you could have been directed further back in time to the works of other artists that have used such style ...
|
|
Grillocracy
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,056
Likes โข 1,242
January 2019
|
look familiar!, by Grillocracy on Mar 27, 2019 0:07:06 GMT 1, HEre's an interesting article on an artist accused of plagiarizing Basquiat. It doesn't seem like "being inspired by XYZ" is an issue for an artist unless that artist is selling the work as being by XYZ. www.france24.com/en/20190222-france-artist-guillaume-verda-accused-plagiarising-jean-michel-basquiat-exhibition-cancelled
That said, if the style of the artist was so recognizable that the majority of the people seeing the ad thought that it was done by the artist then that could be considered fraud IMO. Like if Ronald McDonald had crossed bones coming out of his head and Xs instead of eyes, you would assume they commissioned KAWS for the ad. Nike couldn't do an all white sneaker with black line drawings of a barking dog or dancing person and say they were "inspired by Keith Haring" as a way of not paying his estate.
HEre's an interesting article on an artist accused of plagiarizing Basquiat. It doesn't seem like "being inspired by XYZ" is an issue for an artist unless that artist is selling the work as being by XYZ. www.france24.com/en/20190222-france-artist-guillaume-verda-accused-plagiarising-jean-michel-basquiat-exhibition-cancelledThat said, if the style of the artist was so recognizable that the majority of the people seeing the ad thought that it was done by the artist then that could be considered fraud IMO. Like if Ronald McDonald had crossed bones coming out of his head and Xs instead of eyes, you would assume they commissioned KAWS for the ad. Nike couldn't do an all white sneaker with black line drawings of a barking dog or dancing person and say they were "inspired by Keith Haring" as a way of not paying his estate.
|
|
Riotcops
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,411
Likes โข 1,302
June 2018
|
look familiar!, by Riotcops on Mar 27, 2019 0:17:08 GMT 1, I think its pretty clear who was copied or where the 'inspiration' came from but I don't think McD's would lose a lawsuit in any way. Firstly, because McDonalds and any major brand knows to what degree they can push their 'inspiration'.
From my history in design/advertising (we were instructed) as long as a design is altered more than 30% it won't be breaking any rules. Hence, how all those graphic t-shirts can knock off famous logos and ident's by simply writing another word with the same font/colour/styling.
As others mentioned it is more of a graphic style that has been copied which cannot be trademarked or protected. Otherwise, we would not have a single piece of work coming out today that wasn't liable for copying something previously released in some capacity. Music is another story. While I don't agree with this at all, and the intention is clear, by using their own food products they have changed enough of the image to be considered a unique design.
I think its pretty clear who was copied or where the 'inspiration' came from but I don't think McD's would lose a lawsuit in any way. Firstly, because McDonalds and any major brand knows to what degree they can push their 'inspiration'.
From my history in design/advertising (we were instructed) as long as a design is altered more than 30% it won't be breaking any rules. Hence, how all those graphic t-shirts can knock off famous logos and ident's by simply writing another word with the same font/colour/styling.
As others mentioned it is more of a graphic style that has been copied which cannot be trademarked or protected. Otherwise, we would not have a single piece of work coming out today that wasn't liable for copying something previously released in some capacity. Music is another story. While I don't agree with this at all, and the intention is clear, by using their own food products they have changed enough of the image to be considered a unique design.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,711
Likes โข 1,050
September 2017
|
look familiar!, by moron on Mar 27, 2019 22:19:10 GMT 1, Wow, seriously. Maybe they could have gotten away with the blurring, but honestly the drips solidify this as complete plagiarism.
It's not as if urban art plagiarised anything
Wow, seriously. Maybe they could have gotten away with the blurring, but honestly the drips solidify this as complete plagiarism. It's not as if urban art plagiarised anything
|
|
moron
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,711
Likes โข 1,050
September 2017
|
look familiar!, by moron on Mar 27, 2019 22:25:07 GMT 1, I doubt anyone would link the out of focus freehand sprayed art to Miz Broz.
Lot's of spray artists and airbrush artists have sprayed blurred flowers blurred backgrounds faces etc etc as part of their art.
Out of focus images are quite common and have been for decades.
Drips have been part of art for decades too.
www.michaelnicholsart.com/buon-fresco-tiles
I doubt anyone would link the out of focus freehand sprayed art to Miz Broz. Lot's of spray artists and airbrush artists have sprayed blurred flowers blurred backgrounds faces etc etc as part of their art. Out of focus images are quite common and have been for decades. Drips have been part of art for decades too. www.michaelnicholsart.com/buon-fresco-tiles
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
look familiar!, by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 12:23:12 GMT 1, The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists. No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol?
The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists. No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol?
|
|
Amber Halo
New Member
Posts โข 554
Likes โข 625
April 2013
|
look familiar!, by Amber Halo on Mar 30, 2019 16:38:24 GMT 1, The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists. No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol? I find loose analogies largely irrelevant in situations like this, as they would matter very little -- at least in the US -- if a lawsuit is brought. You sue McDonald's, you start discovery and conduct forensics on the computers of McDonald's ad team (hired for this campaign)... and if you start seeing search histories/captured images of Miaz Bros. Guess what happens next?
The best claim is arguably one for copyright infringement. This is outrageous if done without the consent of the Miaz Bros, and one would hope they take action to discourage other corporations from effectively stealing from artists. No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol? I find loose analogies largely irrelevant in situations like this, as they would matter very little -- at least in the US -- if a lawsuit is brought. You sue McDonald's, you start discovery and conduct forensics on the computers of McDonald's ad team (hired for this campaign)... and if you start seeing search histories/captured images of Miaz Bros. Guess what happens next?
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,687
Likes โข 6,309
June 2009
|
look familiar!, by met on Mar 30, 2019 19:06:53 GMT 1, No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol? I find loose analogies largely irrelevant in situations like this, as they would matter very little -- at least in the US -- if a lawsuit is brought. You sue McDonald's, you start discovery and conduct forensics on the computers of McDonald's ad team (hired for this campaign)... and if you start seeing search histories/captured images of Miaz Bros. Guess what happens next? To sue, the plaintiff would need a genuine legal claim. What would be the cause of action here?
If a claim were attempted on copyright grounds, it would immediately be met with McDonald's filing a motion to dismiss โ for failure to sufficiently allege all the elements of copyright infringement. [As previously referred to by mutatis, using someone else's idea or style is not actionable under intellectual property law.] In such circumstances, I suspect the motion to dismiss would be granted by the relevant court, long before any discovery process could start.
Unless it had another legal card up its sleeve, going down the path of a lawsuit would therefore seem like a futile effort and wasted expense for the plaintiff.
__________
In case the Miaz Brothers really did believe it was a good idea to divert resources and take on a global corporation (regarding a campaign limited to the territory of Puerto Rico), they might have more luck asking their representatives to set up a meeting.
For McDonald's, the potential threat is likely to be more credible from a PR perspective than a legal one. A desire by the company to minimise the risk of public shaming via the media and social media might be sufficient leverage to allow both sides to reach some kind of settlement.
No one is claiming that this is by the Miaz Bros. I can't see this being a copyright infringement. If you made a poster of Marilyn Monroe is garish colours, would you be infringing copyright on Andy Warhol? I find loose analogies largely irrelevant in situations like this, as they would matter very little -- at least in the US -- if a lawsuit is brought. You sue McDonald's, you start discovery and conduct forensics on the computers of McDonald's ad team (hired for this campaign)... and if you start seeing search histories/captured images of Miaz Bros. Guess what happens next? To sue, the plaintiff would need a genuine legal claim. What would be the cause of action here? If a claim were attempted on copyright grounds, it would immediately be met with McDonald's filing a motion to dismiss โ for failure to sufficiently allege all the elements of copyright infringement. [As previously referred to by mutatis, using someone else's idea or style is not actionable under intellectual property law.] In such circumstances, I suspect the motion to dismiss would be granted by the relevant court, long before any discovery process could start. Unless it had another legal card up its sleeve, going down the path of a lawsuit would therefore seem like a futile effort and wasted expense for the plaintiff. __________ In case the Miaz Brothers really did believe it was a good idea to divert resources and take on a global corporation (regarding a campaign limited to the territory of Puerto Rico), they might have more luck asking their representatives to set up a meeting. For McDonald's, the potential threat is likely to be more credible from a PR perspective than a legal one. A desire by the company to minimise the risk of public shaming via the media and social media might be sufficient leverage to allow both sides to reach some kind of settlement.
|
|