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

[gaymer77]

SOURCE

In the past year, H&M has been continuously rebuked for foul play, from allegedly copying designs from high-end labels such as Vetements, to sending the Internet ablaze over its “coolest monkey in the jungle” hoodie design. Now, the fast fashion giant has landed under fire for issuing a lawsuit against street artist Jason “REVOK” Williams.

The lawsuit was a response to a cease and desist letter sent by Williams requesting H&M remove an ad campaign featuring his street art. On the grounds that the art was considered a product of criminal conduct, the lawsuit shot back, “Mr. Williams has no copyright rights to assert.”

While H&M’s hoodie design may have been tacked up to gross oversight, this street art controversy is direct action on H&M’s part and in fact, the most serious action a company can take: issuing a lawsuit. H&M’s response has ignited leading artists, including KAWS, Daniel Arsham, STASH and legendary NYC-based graffiti collective TATS CRU, who have all denounced the lawsuit, identifying the move as a direct target on artist’s rights.

The backlash erupted when acclaimed American curator, author and street art expert Roger Gastman shared a post on Instagram this past Wednesday relaying the global artist community sees H&M’s lawsuit as “a threat to artist’s rights.” Unwittingly, H&M waged war and its legal action had far-reaching implications for the debate over the legality of street art.

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.

[Garnier Fructis]

Google image search street art and then tell me again that they're not artists.

[Katchii]

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.

They may be vandals, that doesn't make them any less of an artist. However, H&M does have a point, the artist in this case has no copyright rights to assert because as far as I know, there is no way to copyright "street art."

[gaymer77]

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.

[Crissi]

Illegal art is still art. Criminal status does not determine art.

[LiiLoSNK]

H&M will always have my business as long as they keep pumping out such amazing deals on cheap crappy clothing.

Also, lol @ "it's not art because it's illegal and i say so". Imagine actually thinking like this.

[gaymer77]

Illegal art is still art. Criminal status does not determine art.

Now do we slap the label on someone as an artist when they burn down a house? Both a graffiti artist and an arson are criminals. If these "artists" want to show off their work, do it on their own property or get permission from the building owner first. Otherwise they are criminals.

[Crissi]

Not does slapping a label on someone as an artist when they burn down a house? Both a graffiti artist and an arson are criminals. If these "artists" want to show off their work, do it on their own property or get permission from the building owner first. Otherwise they are criminals.

Well sure, but graffiti criminal artists are still artists. That was my only issue since you said they weren't.

and comparing graffiti to arson is a bit hyperbolic, speaking as someone whose church was set on fire.

[Sunseeker]

Now do we slap the label on someone as an artist when they burn down a house? Both a graffiti artist and an arson are criminals. If these "artists" want to show off their work, do it on their own property or get permission from the building owner first. Otherwise they are criminals.

Wow, way to jump from artistic vandalism to fucking arson. Apples to oranges much?

[gaymer77]

Well sure, but graffiti criminal artists are still artists. That was my only issue since you said they weren't.

and comparing graffiti to arson is a bit hyperbolic, speaking as someone whose church was set on fire.

As was my house when I was at home 10 years ago. If the arson comparison isn't valid enough then how about the "artist" label on someone who throws paint on people wearing fur coats & claiming it as art?

[Crissi]

As was my house when I was at home 10 years ago. If the arson comparison isn't valid enough then how about the "artist" label on someone who throws paint on people wearing fur coats & claiming it as art?

Sure, that's art too. Just prosecutable one since non criminal performance art requires consent. Although I'd like a link to see any artist claiming as such, because I've never heard of that before.

[Shelly]

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.

No, the guy that owns the building that the art is located on has cause to sue, H&M not so much.

H&M is stealing assets that other people have created.

It will be an interesting case to determine if the works can be considered part of the public domain or not.

[Khaza-R]

H&M is firing a lot of controversy this year.

First Monkey in the Jungle

Then the Allah socks

Now "stealing" street art.

Certainly a good year for generating buzz

[PosPosPos]

Now do we slap the label on someone as an artist when they burn down a house? Both a graffiti artist and an arson are criminals. If these "artists" want to show off their work, do it on their own property or get permission from the building owner first. Otherwise they are criminals.

The next time you jaywalk you should think yourself on the same level as a serial murderer, since you love to lump all criminals into a single category.

[minteK917]

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.

You realize if anybody smart actually thinks like this, most of european arts would be stuck forever to only be about the religion that took art over. Because most of the art not directly encouraged by the churches in europe where illegal? Art is art, illegal or not.

[gaymer77]

Which of these are art or are they all art?


*snip*





I just need to know which of these are classified as art & therefor the person who did them classified as an artist.

[Calfredd]

-Snip-

As much as I hate to admit it, it's all art and you hating the people who made it doesn't change that so quit with the snob.

[gaymer77]

As much as I hate to admit it, it's all art and you hating the people who made it doesn't change that so quit with the snob.

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

[Calfredd]

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

Did you draw a picture? Did you paint a landscape? Did you pencil a portrait? Congratulations, you're an artist.

[LiiLoSNK]

You know the thread is going places when the OP is now posting his own shit logs to prove some sort of point.

This is comedic art in its purest form.