misteraven Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 6 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. No art was taken. At most, you can view some of it in the background, but it isn't the focal point in any of the images shown in this thread. If anyone considers that to be stolen, then I suppose that it would require them to think that the intellectual property or brand equities of Coney Island Restaurant and whatever Central Market that also appear in these photos was as well. Likewise, there's clearly a Jeep Cherokee in the last image. That stylistic font in the banner hanging on the lamp post is no doubt licensed by whoever made the banner, which doesn't cover Mercedes usage of it, so they'd be due something as well under this line of thinking. In fact, maybe the foundry that cast those lamp posts... This is the rabbit hole you have to crawl down if you think the people that painted the mural in the background are due compensation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) Wait, I thought the title was a typo and the artists were suing Mercedes Benz, that would suck to be sued in retaliation. I'll have to read up on this but that's a bad move IMO on Benz's part. Unless it's just a tactic to encourage settlement, t's a waste of legal fees, and a good way to create tons of Benz haters considering all of all of those artists fans, and street art supporters in general. Wonder how this will play out considering their marketing department probably spend millions trying to rebuild their tarnished, somewhat meh reputation with millennials. Edited June 25, 2019 by Mercer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 50 minutes ago, misteraven said: No art was taken. At most, you can view some of it in the background, but it isn't the focal point in any of the images shown in this thread. If anyone considers that to be stolen, then I suppose that it would require them to think that the intellectual property or brand equities of Coney Island Restaurant and whatever Central Market that also appear in these photos was as well. Likewise, there's clearly a Jeep Cherokee in the last image. That stylistic font in the banner hanging on the lamp post is no doubt licensed by whoever made the banner, which doesn't cover Mercedes usage of it, so they'd be due something as well under this line of thinking. In fact, maybe the foundry that cast those lamp posts... This is the rabbit hole you have to crawl down if you think the people that painted the mural in the background are due compensation. There is an architect act that allows most permanent things you mentioned to be used, but it doesn’t cover the mural. Mercedes is saying it does because it is permanent. Mercedes is saying anything in public can be used by them and whoever, just because it is in the public. This would trump copyright and other traditional protects. Also, as for the appeal thing. Mercedes = money, muralists = no money. Mercedes can litigate them into the poor house literally. Appeals cost money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 23 minutes ago, Mercer said: Wait, I thought the title was a typo and the artists were suing Mercedes Benz, that would suck to be sued in retaliation. I'll have to read up on this but that's a bad move IMO on Benz's part. Unless it's just a tactic to encourage settlement, t's a waste of legal fees, and a good way to create tons of Benz haters considering all of all of those artists fans, and street art supporters in general. Wonder how this will play out considering their marketing department probably spend millions trying to rebuild their tarnished, somewhat meh reputation with millennials. As I understand it, the artists reached out to Mercedes to discuss compensation. Mercedes then jumped to the chase and decided to litigate, presumably because they saw that coming anyways. Not fact, but what I gathered from the bits I read and the understanding that I've been basing my comments from. 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, Kults said: You got me mixed up with Mercer And you got me mixed up with someone who thinks that the government should have total control over everything and everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
where Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) On 6/25/2019 at 11:14 AM, CILONE/SK said: I also find it ironic Edited June 26, 2019 by where 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.