Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
ClownPrince

Revok vs. H&M

Recommended Posts

Ha, great topic, wish we had more heads on here for discussion. Can't knock the guy too hard as I've enjoyed seeing his shit from early days on. Guess the question here is who gets to profit from a crime? Like the technique of how he did what he did, but... really wouldn't consider that art per se. Tried to find a bigger pic to see if he wrote his name or something but doesn't appear that way.

 

If you do something in public, illegally no less, aren't you leaving it there for the public to do with as it sees fit? Would he sue someone who buffed over it? But then the issue really is he's mad about someone making money off his creations. Funny that his suit says something about HM using his shit gives him a bad name. Without this suit I would have passed that ad and never even have thought a writer did that, nor would I have associated those lines with Revok. Interesting counter suit too, provokes the authorities.

 

Feel somewhat divided on this topic. Like with the 5 Pointz lawsuit, that kind of seemed like stop crying and get over it, and yet they won so apparently a judge agrees (sure it's on appeal so we'll see if it changes/reverses). Anyhow, there are some comparisons that could be made. Yet in this case... on the one hand I feel like tough loss/stop crying, on the other hand, I wouldn't want any corporation/business using something I did without permission to make $ for themselves. But then again, he left it out there for all. And they're not really making money from his name/art. Fuck it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, stupidest thing I've heard this year.

 

"I'm not willing to respect the law that protects public property but I want the law to protect what I illegally put on that public property".

 

Get a fucking grip, you put it out there, you force it on the public, you can't complain when the public uses it. It's like a drug dealer reporting to police that some one ripped him off on a deal. Has to be a stunt, cannot actually be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution.”

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/graffiti-writers-declares-war-on-handm-after-fashion-chain-claims-they-have-no-right-to-their-own-work

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the issue.

 

The only reason I side with Revok is the counter suit from H&M against him. If they just used his lines (which is pretty much all he does now based on his IG, occasionally its cool, but most of it is far too 'street art' for me to give a fuck about it) in the background of an ad, and he sued, I'd be on the same page as christo, but because they responded as such, fuck 'em.

 

However, if he wins (and the whole thing is not simply just dropped) I think it sets a potentially dangerous precedent. If an architect or firm puts up a skyscraper that winds up in the background of an ad for a company they disagree with, would they not be able to use the same case to have their building removed from said ad campaign?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liked that 2nd article better, explained shit a bit better. Have to say good for him for backing them down, I do remember other MSK/CBS guys raising this issue a long time back. Also good to hear from Ket and Slick, wish we had active forums where some of the O.G.s could speak on some of this and some other things because social media doesn't give the room and I don't use it anyhow. I also enjoyed this point "H&M is about to start a war with people who gladly destroy private property for fun in their free time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If an architect or firm puts up a skyscraper that winds up in the background of an ad for a company they disagree with, would they not be able to use the same case to have their building removed from said ad campaign?

 

I've been told that some instances like this exist, where the architect registers a trademark for the shape/design of the building and so subsequently usage rights are needed in order to portray it.

 

You're right though, it was the counter claim that rubs the wrong way. Also, this:

 

Update: Like many, we assumed that H&M's statement implied the lawsuit was being dropped, but now this appears to not be the case. According to Juxtapoz, which spoke with Revok's attorney Jeff Gluck, it's still very much on. "This evening I spoke with counsel for H&M. They informed me that they are NOT in fact dismissing the lawsuit," said Gluck. We'll update you as more is learned.

 

The plot thickens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By chance I came across some different writers discussing similar issues with similar, good points made.

Also by chance I came across this piece of artwork I flicked 8(?) years ago and this is as good a place as any to put it:

 

msk.thumb.jpg.36341de21a4675905e6380bdf5f7e247.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think oddly enough revok is the only person to not make a public statement on this so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...., assuming that you know everyone behind each username

I think his post here would be all caps ranting about how they stole his artwork with several exclamation marks at the end of his sentence. I think it's stupid to argue about someone using your illegal work elsewhere, at the end of the day you're just stating the fact that you need to be prosecuted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I need to venture of out Channel 0 more often. Keep coming up on some good threads like this one here. Meanwhile lumping all the off topic stuff over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been told that some instances like this exist, where the architect registers a trademark for the shape/design of the building and so subsequently usage rights are needed in order to portray it.

 

You're right though, it was the counter claim that rubs the wrong way. Also, this:

 

 

 

The plot thickens.

 

 

On that note: it is illegal to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night: https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-illegal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Slick sold these at his shop for $0.99

 

667548483_Screenshot(2).png.4b0a4ffdff4b0b450de99ecb5631f456.png

Edited by luhem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@luhem supersick. Fun graphic and awesome that he ran a deal like that. Would have scooped up a few for friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great to see the community comes together

for standing behind Revok, what a force we have....

 

1a7164a5-1821-43e1-957c-796cf87ec59e.jpg.321f916de6d85f4f314479cea4735c2d.jpg

4-2.jpg.bb8763b2fa62c1641bc2bb110a431cc5.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this makes more sense than trying to fight it in court.

  • Truth 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2018 at 5:41 AM, theprotester said:

Lol don't all writers have a legal team on retainer?

 

Fuck all of this noise

You didn't get the Writer's Union invite flyer?

Legal Protection.

Krink Workshops.

VR graffiti battles.

Vape Cloud competitions.

Union Dues are one Steak handstyle and 12 racked rustos. 

  • Props 1
  • LOL! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2018 at 7:36 PM, misteraven said:

I think this makes more sense than trying to fight it in court.

Could not agree more. The court thing seemed odd. I get why he would but still

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d really love to hear @Misk-TheDragonchime in, though I know intellectual property isn’t you’re specific area of focus. 

 

Care to drop an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×