Plagiarism. Revok v H&M

[scotty]

Has anyone else been keeping an eye on the Revok v H&M plagiarism case?

If you haven't, H&M have had a bit of a history for...well, using other peoples work really.
There's been a few cases of them using "very similar designs" on their clothing and not to mention the Monkey Hoodie.

This is about them doing a photo shoot in front of one of Revok's murals on a wall in NY.
Revok (like or not) has a very marked style and tends to use several cans at the same time to produce his work.

Revok saw this and issued a cease and desist letter and then law suit and counter law suits have been issued between the two.
Revok is claiming that they're using his work without permission and H&M claim it's vandalism and so, fair game.

Over the last week things have been going back and forward between both almost daily and the latest thing is that H&M have dropped
it's own suit and issued a statement saying that they "should have acted differently".

Thing is... this was only after public outrage especially amongst the street art community leaving their shops open to every street artist, tagger or whatever to make their point.
"F@CK H&M. PAY REVOK"

To me, it's a case of the big guy ripping off the little guy and finding out the little guy has a LOT of friends. Not to mention the internet.

 

[Paul Murray]

H&M claim it's vandalism and so, fair game.

This is basically the same argument as "it was on Google images so we can use it." It's a weird grey area, what is and isn't graffiti kind of depends on context and ultimately I suppose weather you have permission to produce in in a particular area. Some hardcore artists would claim anything you have permission to produce isn't graffiti and perhaps leans more towards street art instead. These same artists would also claim you need to steal you paint too to be a true graffiti artists, so whatever.

Regardless, if you've created something then you should own the rights regardless. Just because it's created in a public place doesn't instantly make it public domain. Though don't people just take Banksy pieces off the street and sell them on a first-come, first-served basis? I've never quite understood the law around that (the 'drops' are probably staged though), so I can understand the H&M argument. I don't agree with it at all, but I can totally understand why they think it's a valid excuse to try and use.

To me, it's a case of the big guy ripping off the little guy and finding out the little guy has a LOT of friends. Not to mention the internet.

Yeah, and it happens with so many other clothing companies too. The whole fashion industry is based on exploitation – factory workers, artists, interns, they all get the shitty end of the stick.

 

[scotty]

Yeah, it is a great area which is why I find it interesting.

What is vandalism and what is art?
I guess if you have permission or an actual commission then it is art in a technical, over simple, stupid kind of way.
Then again, I've worked for a commercial graffiti/mural company and I guess you couldn't use those when they've been paid for?

I think the argument boils down to that anything that someone creates does come under the area of copyright.

Add Banksy to the equation and it gets even more complicated.
People rip out his stuff and put it up for auction.
I guess if you owned the wall then this is okay. I dunno?

I guess you could argue both sides for ever.

I do think I have a little monster inside that loves it when the little guy gets f@cked over and bites back though.

 

[scotty]

Yeah, and it happens with so many other clothing companies too. The whole fashion industry is based on exploitation – factory workers, artists, interns, they all get the shitty end of the stick.

Can't fault you on that one!

 

[Paul Murray]

Add Banksy to the equation and it gets even more complicated.
People rip out his stuff and put it up for auction.
I guess if you owned the wall then this is okay. I dunno?

Exactly, it's weird how laws tend to be decided based on the outcome of a court. In cases like this it's often not clear who is in the right and it won't be clear until a judge decides. Your wall, but my art. Perhaps you have the right to remove the art and the wall with it, but do you have the right to sell that art without my permission?

I'm sure H&M are loving all the publicity too, wouldn't surprise me if those tees or whatever sold out due to the hype. Personally I stopped buying from H&M when they started just selling t-shirts and vests that reach down to your knees.

 

[scotty]

I'm sure H&M are loving all the publicity too, wouldn't surprise me if those tees or whatever sold out due to the hype. Personally I stopped buying from H&M when they started just selling t-shirts and vests that reach down to your knees.

I'm not so sure it's the good kind Paul.

I'd rather be in Revok's shoes.
The little guy. The artist who took on H&M.
The one that's kicking H&M's ass!

You just can't buy that kind of kudos and publicity plus every kid with a marker or a can of paint has open season on H&M's store fronts.

 

[Levi]

I'd have argued differently.... purely because while I appreciate the skill that goes into 'some' graffiti (that squigly line thing looks rubbish), once it's put on public display, often illegally (which it is in this case according to US law), it's open to be used by anyone else in their own 'creative expression' imo.

The 'graffiti' looks like it's on 'public' property so would in most people's eyes be seen as public domain, or at the very least the property of the person who owns the wall, and as such no need to get permission from the artist to use that location. It's a bit like standing in front of a banksy and taking the photo.

Now if it was on a private wall, had been paid for, then you'd need to ask for permission from the property owner, but this is apparently in a playground...

The graffiti on the building at H&M is vandalism pure and simple though.

 

[scotty]

Nah @Levi, I can respect that and I'm not really arguing a case for graffiti and can totally see your point.

I just find it quite interesting as plagiarism is something that affects every creative of all types.
I think I like the David and Goliath twist to this story.

Incidentally, There was recently the case of a developer in the States who painted over a load of graft pieces over night on some derelict buildings which I think he may have owned.
They'd become recognised for the artwork and people went to see the spot.

He landed himself a fine for well over five million dollars.

 

[Levi]

Nah @Levi,

Incidentally, There was recently the case of a developer in the States who painted over a load of graft pieces over night on some derelict buildings which I think he may have owned.
They'd become recognised for the artwork and people went to see the spot.

He landed himself a fine for well over five million dollars.

That's a bit screwed up really. In the US, graffiti is illegal (basically it's vandalism) and as such has no copyright or protections associated with it. Seeing as it's vandalism the owner should be within his rights to remove said vandalism yet because 'it's a tourist attraction', despite it being done illegally, they changed the rules... doesn't make sense when you think about it.

Now I could understand it if say someone went and demolished a wall that's been specifically installed for grafitti but this was vandalism to a private property...

 

[scotty]

I found the article here.

Seems it was awaiting judgement in court when the owner took it upon himself to do a little painting himself.

 

[Levi]

snip

Well that makes it even more stupid, the owner can't 'renovate' it without removing it, he can't sell it because no one will pay for it with that on it, so based on that judgement he's basically being told to forfit the cost of that building (+ 5million) for some rather ugly (from that picture) vandalism... you just got love the American justice system at times lol.

Actually reading that article, it comes across that the artists were a bit 'self absorbed' because they were basically being allowed to use the space, it was never theirs and it was always likely to be pulled down etc.... if they wanted something permanent then they should have used canvas rather than a derelict building. Not to mention that sets a presidence for for 'vandalism' on privately owned property.... get enough people to see it and you can't do anything with the building even though it was done illegally...

 

[Jri]

I haven't read the article, but I was under the impression that the artwork was done with the proprietor's endorsment?

Frankly, I think it looks like a sticker collection you'd get in a 1990s cereal box.

I saw an Instagram post that popped up in my suggestions feed a few weeks back where a supposedly renowned graffiti artist was being filmed painting one of his tags. He had a bunch of hipster looking sycophants stood around pointing their phones at him as he did what I can only describe as very basic, sloppy pink bubble letters (and poorly executed at that, dripping where he left the can in one place for too long etc...). He was fat, bald and maybe 45-50 years old, so presumably a veteran of the graffiti world. The post had about 15k likes.

The reason I bring it up is that there seems to be a cult-of-personality that has grown out of graffiti's fixation with the artist's name and it's connection to their signature/tag. The way people covet their name adds a weird percieved value to their work which in turn seems (to me at least) to come through as entitlement for their work to be preserved/protected. And to be blunt, it's utterly bogus.

If some supposedly sought after artist sprays something on your property, call the police then when the incident has been logged, sell the work to their fans (being sure to factor in the cost of having it removed).

 

[scotty]

I haven't read the article, but I was under the impression that the artwork was done with the proprietor's endorsment?

The building was a designated spot and the owner rented it out for the use of artists as I recall.
He then decided to knock it down for luxury apartments.
The artists brought a law suit but he decided to white wash many of them before reaching judgement. In a nutshell.

Can't say I'm a fan of all "street art" as some of it is utter crap but that's subjective really.

The whole graff/street art thing is quite complex and many would call us "sell outs" for doing it professionally and the fact that for saving time we may use a projector or stencils would cause frowns but that's like a Designer saying using cmd+z is cheating.
We don't do it to be authentic to some cause. We're just in it for the MONEY!
Sell outs really.

As a whole, I'm a fan of good street art and take time out to see it when visiting a new place.

In my old home City of Sheffield there's a David Bowie tribute piece that we affectionately call "Dodgy Dave".

 

[Jri]

Looks like Dolph Lundgren and Sigourney Weaver had a bairn. A bronze one.

I have no chips on my shoulder about making a living. Looking at it the other way, street artists who shun art as a profession are turning their back on a potential income stream for them and their families. At's all a perspective thing.

Artistic credibility is all well and good, but I'd take a full belly and a paid mortgage any day.