Is H&M’s Graffiti Scandal Apology Too Little Too Late?

[AwkwardSquirtle]

This is comedic art in its purest form.

So yes OP, you are an artist. I hope it's all you ever dreamed of.

[Kraddark]

I started on the artist's side but after looking into it I now fall on H&M's side. The artist put their art up in a public space. It looks like H&M got permission from the location's manager to shoot there. They used the images in advertising.

It would be one thing if the company started printing shirts of the design. You can't tag in a space that isn't yours and then expect to control who is allowed to use that space. Can you imagine the alternative?

I tag your building and now you can't use photos of it to advertise because of my copy right? That is rife for abuse. With that said, H&M messed up when they decided to sue him.

[Deleted]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals. H&M had every right to sue that guy.

Cant they be artists and vandals?

[Themius]

I've seen images. I live in California and have been to the LA area many times. Just because of what it looks like doesn't change the fact they are vandals who are putting their "art" on the walls & windows of other people's property.

A lot of graffiti is commissioned.

[Lochton]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals. H&M had every right to sue that guy.

Picture showed depicts vandalism. So, end case, pay up 'street artist'. Sorry that H&M got under fire for what would be considered a harmless thing by some other countries. All this shit because of an actual lovely sweater.

[Themius]

I started on the artist's side but after looking into it I now fall on H&M's side. The artist put their art up in a public space. It looks like H&M got permission from the location's manager to shoot there. They used the images in advertising.

It would be one thing if the company started printing shirts of the design. You can't tag in a space that isn't yours and then expect to control who is allowed to use that space. Can you imagine the alternative?

I tag your building and now you can't use photos of it to advertise because of my copy right? That is rife for abuse. With that said, H&M messed up when they decided to sue him.

That doesn’t really matter. If the copyright belongs to the original artist and permission wasn’t given to the manager by the artist then he is in violation. Just because it is on his property doesn’t give him full reign to reproduce and profit off of t.

For instance if an artist builds an installation on my house and I haven’t worked out a deal where I g T to profit I can’t then go and take pictures and then sell those pictures to make money and give the artist nothing

- - - Updated - - -

Picture showed depicts vandalism. So, end case, pay up 'street artist'. Sorry that H&M got under fire for what would be considered a harmless thing by some other countries. All this shit because of an actual lovely sweater.

Do you see all graffiti and say this despite a lot of graffiti being commissioned work?

[ipaq]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals. H&M had every right to sue that guy.

Love your education. Stop getting credits in Fox News watching.

Street art do not ALWAYS mean taggin' some poor helpless wall, tram, trucks, etc.

Street art ALSO mean creating art out IN the street by paid/request of the city, mass transit, landlords, owner of truck fleet, etc.

[Lochton]

Do you see all graffiti and say this despite a lot of graffiti being commissioned work?

Nope? Then again, I can see I've misread the article and thought it was about actions taken on private property. Hence my previous comment.

As for the whole battle, it is down to flaws in their art and copyrights. You're in the open space using public areas to do your street art, already there it is a free shot for people to use, then proceed to not have the legal papers if commissioned, then again, people can take a grab.

[Deleted]

Public domain is public domain. This will make it hard for these artists to claim any form of ownership.

[Ryme]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Dezerte]

Whoever owns the property the graffiti was painted on should have the final say.

[ChampionChains]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals. H&M had every right to sue that guy.

If you knew the slightest bit about "street art" or modern graffiti artists, many of them paint murals on legal walls, it isn't all illegally sprayed junk done under cover of darkness like some 80s hip hop movie. Cities all over the US have areas designated, some owned by the city and some privately owned which are legal spots for artists to paint. When artists are being flown internationally by corporations to paint walls and murals for them and making over six figures a year, there's a big distinction between them and the guy who sprays a swastika on your local Walmart. The vast majority of the guys making a living off their art have gone legit and paint only legal spaces since they're making BANK and don't want to risk losing their income or going to jail.

[Magnagarde]

He paints up an object in public view/a public object/another person's object, but expects "copyright".

There'd literally be cities where nobody would be able to shoot a tourist ad or campaign because someone decided to paint a public object up, automatically making that portion of the city's view their copyright.

His illegal paint-trashing trip should be rinsed off the walls and he should be fined. Even if the objects he painted on were built to be sprayed upon, it is still the property of the community and he has no claim to it whatsoever.

[Deleted]

Doesn't matter what it looks like - it's still illegal.

Doesnt matter if its illegal, its still art.

[Gorsameth]

Doesnt matter if its illegal, its still art.

Just because its art it doesn't mean he has copyright on it.
Which is what he is getting sued for.

[Najnaj]

So that would make ME an artist then? I only ask because 2 of those images are from me.

If you think so, then yes. Artist is not a protected term and art is what ever you think it is. I personally do not consider Mondrian's color blocks art, amazing as they may look. Mondrian (and much of the world) would disagree and not one of us is wrong.

[therealbowser]

I don't care what these people want to call themselves, they're not artists. They are vandals. H&M had every right to sue that guy.

Unrelated to the topic at hand, I just want to ask... why is it unfathomable that they can't be both? It's not mutually exclusive.

Most 'street art' is just vandalism, but I've seen some gorgeous stuff, too -- naturally, all or most of it was paid for rather than random graffiti, but, in the end... art is in the eye of the beholder. So even shitty vandalism, in a sense, is art. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it not art.

All of that said, vandalism is also still vandalism, regardless of whether it is art, so that, too, is irrelevant.

[Themius]

Whoever owns the property the graffiti was painted on should have the final say.

No they shouldn’t. Not if they commissioned it.

[Deleted]

That's just silly isn't it

Why?

Just because its art it doesn't mean he has copyright on it.
Which is what he is getting sued for.

I agree its a tough one. I think H&M are scumbags for profiting on someone elses art, however as the art is often in the public domain and if it is painted on a wall or building the artist doesn't own or they arent paid for it, then its hard to argue the artist actually owns the rights to that particular piece. I still think H&M shouldn't be allowed to just use someone elses material though.

Im mainly responding to the absurd comments that street art isnt art.

[Deleted]

Because the law is the law? What are you finding hard to grasp here

Just because its the law doesnt make it right.

H&M are still scumbags whether its the law or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like H&M have withdrawn the lawsuit anyway

http://www.680news.com/2018/03/17/hm-graffiti-lawsuit/

"It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art."

Good, otherwise we'd have a huge surge of clothing companies ripping off artists work with no credit or compensation