CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-mercedes-benz-sued-four-artists-murals-appeared-instagram-posts If Mercedes wins this, it would set a huge precedent for any art in the public. What do you guys think? This was a few months ago, but it is still going on now, and I didn’t see it being talked about here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Pretty stupid on both sides of that fence. If you're in public, you're in public... If a compelling argument can be made that the success of the product is due directly to the context in which its been presented and its clearly capitalizing, not just on the look and feel, but the association being made... Then thats a different story. We're now living in a hyper politically correct world in which people have lost site of logic and reason. Likewise, one can easily extrapolate the consequences... Cause: Painted walls with murals cause problems. Effect: Let's do away with walls painted with murals. Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/17/metoo-backlash-more-male-managers-avoid-mentoring-women-or-meeting-alone-with-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1bd8bd65ba5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorne_Malvo Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I don't know if someone can retroactively charge for work like a mural featured in an ad campaign, if I had work I'd done used in this manner at the very least I'd try to use that as a way in to bring them on as a client for future campaigns. Regardless, Mercedes having the balls to sue after using murals as key creative assets (for free, nonetheless) to sell their product is pretty outrageous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Repeat of revok v h&m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Issue sounds like a thread that was started before re: Revok Vs HM. Most interesting part to me was where Mercedes argued they "fundamentally transformed the visual aesthetic and meaning" of the murals. Looks to me like they're trying to say we can take a piece of art and change its meaning (to suit our purposes) by simply photographing it from an angle or whatever. I know people will look at a piece of art and find their own meaning, which may be quite different from the artist's, but the idea that you can change the meaning of someone else's art in the way they argue.......?? Can only think of one exception to that. Clearly viewed from the right angle, you can see she's a whore: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I don't believe in copyright, or ownership of any intellectual property rights, like patents/recorded music, etc. With that said I do oppose fraud/counterfeiting 100%. If Mercedes made it look like the artists were collaborating with Mercedes, or endorsing their product they should be forced to compensate the artists well above what a normal contract for that type of work would cost as punishment. In the case of Revok vs H&M they sold a shirt that looked like it was a (very shitty) Revok endorsed/collaborated shirt without a doubt, and should have lost millions for that IMO. Showing up in the background of an advertisement is tricky. Like do architects get a cut if their iconic buildings are featured in an add's background? I'd argue it does make the cars look cooler if they're not featured in front of boring background structures, yet don't feel architects should have claim every time their work in public is filmed/photographed and appears in commercial media. If the tables are turned, wouldn't Mercedes be able to sue an artist if one of their cars is featured in an IG post either randomly in the background, or if the artist themselves just stuntin in the driver's seat. I'd have to see the ads first, and then judge how the artists work is being presented. If it's so central to the add it appears like a collaboration/endorsement they need to pay them, well above what it would have cost to hire them with their permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Mercer said: In the case of Revok vs H&M they sold a shirt that looked like it was a (very shitty) Revok endorsed/collaborated shirt without a doubt, and should have lost millions for that IMO. Did I use the wrong example? Thought there was one where they (or did another company do this) an advertisement in front of something he did? Edited June 25, 2019 by One Man Banned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I don't think they owe them for that. Clearly looks like they're rolling past a hip urban setting, AKA slumming it real quick without even parking and getting out. I mean I get why they want money, but if a precedent is granted in this case, this would essentially end anyones ability to shoot photos outdoors, or post anything on IG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, One Man Banned said: Issue sounds like a thread that was started before re: Revok Vs HM. Most interesting part to me was where Mercedes argued they "fundamentally transformed the visual aesthetic and meaning" of the murals. Looks to me like they're trying to say we can take a piece of art and change its meaning (to suit our purposes) by simply photographing it from an angle or whatever. I know people will look at a piece of art and find their own meaning, which may be quite different from the artist's, but the idea that you can change the meaning of someone else's art in the way they argue.......?? Can only think of one exception to that. Clearly viewed from the right angle, you can see she's a whore: Look up Richard Price and Marlboro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 If Mercedes wins, that will set the precedent that all public work can be used by anyone, for anything. The argument that the internet is public, is not far fetched after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I think this is fine. They took shots of the car driving in front of some (derpy) murals. If you paint something in public like that it’s fair game. We gonna start suing thots for taking pics for the gram in front of murals now? Gimmy a break. This is super lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 What do you define as public? What about if you post something online, that’s public? What if someone else puts that on a shirt and makes money off that, and you never see a dollar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Man Banned Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 35 minutes ago, CILONE/SK said: Look up Richard Price and Marlboro. I get things like fair use and parody. Not sure Prince/Marlboro is a good or equal example to graf/Mercedes. He took images and shopped them, and that does change how people view them and the message they convey (also amusing that people dropped a lot of coin for it, way to hustle). Mercedes used someone's art as a backdrop. I guess from their side they're trying to argue that driving a car in front of it changes the message and how it's viewed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 What Mercedes is saying is that it is in the public, and that makes it free use. Over time, this can result in all things, even unintentionally made public, becoming free use. It essentially will cause a huge drop of artist being paid for their art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, CILONE/SK said: What do you define as public? What about if you post something online, that’s public? What if someone else puts that on a shirt and makes money off that, and you never see a dollar? Online is a bit different but it’s still fair use. How far graffiti has fallen when ‘writers’ who once did it just for the kicks of people seeing their names up are now suing over their art getting used in ad campaigns. Bitch please lol If your intent is to make money off it stop putting up on public walls for all to see and stick to galleries or something. Graffiti is free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 It doesn’t really say but they were permitted by the city to paint this. So they still owned it. Also, they didn’t sue Mercedes, they just asked them to remove it. Mercedes took a huge step in suing them to set a precedent, that will allow all art to be free use. Online isn't really different, since it is the modern times public square. What if if I took a picture of something you painted in your house, post it online? Some one took what I posted and turned it into a product and sold it? You wouldn’t be able to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 When should artists of any type be paid for their work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, CILONE/SK said: What if if I took a picture of something you painted in your house, post it online? Some one took what I posted and turned it into a product and sold it? You wouldn’t be able to do anything. Whats in my house isn't the public square, any way you cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, CILONE/SK said: It doesn’t really say but they were permitted by the city to paint this. So they still owned it. Also, they didn’t sue Mercedes, they just asked them to remove it. They did though "The company claims the artists have threatened to sue for copyright infringement," Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kults said: Whats in my house isn't the public square, any way you cut it. It could be if an image gets posted somewhere and becomes public. I know now it is far fetched now, but that is where this ruling for Mercedes can go to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kults said: They did though "The company claims the artists have threatened to sue for copyright infringement," Mercedes actually sued them. They just said they will if it wasn’t removed. Difference. Any time a lawyer writes writes a letter, they say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, CILONE/SK said: It could be if an image gets posted somewhere and becomes public. I know now it is far fetched now, but that is where this ruling for Mercedes can go to. Not really. I think that's a reach at best. Mercedes didn't break into anyone's house to steal any art. It was right there on the street for all to see. The fact that you're even defending this action on a board that started to celebrate illegal graffiti is funny to me. They cant have it both ways. Either go legit, copyright your name and trademark or stick to graff, remain anonymous and just be happy you got the free exposure. E: Not for nothing but the irony isn't lost on me, the fact that you support socialist ideals where everything belongs to everyone yet pick this hill to die on is pretty humorous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Understand also that this was a reaction by Mercedes Benz. In that they decide to come back strong after the artists approached them looking for compensation for it having appeared in the mural. On first pass, I don't think the success of the add shown in that IG post was contingent on the mural in the background. If anything it's about the ruggedness of the vehicle. I think the snow and perhaps background lend itself to the idea of it being rugged. Fact of the matter is we live in a country where you don't need a good reason to litigate. You don't need to be correct, moral or anything else. You just need to file the paperwork and pay the fees, so a lot of dumb shit will pass through the court system. Obviously this reaction by Mercedes was a strategic move to counter what they saw as a threat. Further to that, they're likely savvy enough to also look at precedents, including the case between Revok and H&M and likely all parties involved see this as an opportunity as it'll no doubt generate a ton of exposure and press at very little cost and effort. There's really not much to this discussion in my opinion... Just more of the same. A charade, semi-veiled to not look like the cash grab that it is. No disrespect to the artists, especially in the climate we live in, but reality is whatever short term gain is aquired will absolutely come with long term consequences that I think most people wont like. If anything, I'm neutral on the subject but reality is it'll likely ultimately push graffiti back underground, which I would love to see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 What I think is getting overlooked here is that if Mercedes wins, it will affect all forms of work in the public. Not just graffiti. And the the next step is to change what is called “public”. A Mercedes win will drastically affect how any art, including music appears in a public atmosphere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 52 minutes ago, Kults said: Not really. I think that's a reach at best. Mercedes didn't break into anyone's house to steal any art. It was right there on the street for all to see. The fact that you're even defending this action on a board that started to celebrate illegal graffiti is funny to me. They cant have it both ways. Either go legit, copyright your name and trademark or stick to graff, remain anonymous and just be happy you got the free exposure. E: Not for nothing but the irony isn't lost on me, the fact that you support socialist ideals where everything belongs to everyone yet pick this hill to die on is pretty humorous. I also find it ironic that someone who supports libertarian ideals, supports a company that is trying to take peoples art and not pay them for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kults Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 4 hours ago, CILONE/SK said: I also find it ironic that someone who supports libertarian ideals, supports a company that is trying to take peoples art and not pay them for it. You got me mixed up with Mercer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 5 hours ago, CILONE/SK said: What I think is getting overlooked here is that if Mercedes wins, it will affect all forms of work in the public. Not just graffiti. And the the next step is to change what is called “public”. A Mercedes win will drastically affect how any art, including music appears in a public atmosphere. Not really. It'll get appealed immediately and work its way through the courts and end up nowhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.