Microstock Photography Forum - General > Off Topic
Mercedes sues mural artists
Shelma1:
Well, here’s a new one...Mercedes has sued four mural artists after photographing their cars with the murals in the background. They’re asking the court to decide that the artists have no copyright claims. In other words, they’re suing the artists to keep the artists from suing them. Which means the artists have to pay an attorney to represent them after their work was used without compensation. https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-mercedes-benz-sued-four-artists-murals-appeared-instagram-posts
Uncle Pete:
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on April 04, 2019, 16:45 ---Well, here’s a new one...Mercedes has sued four mural artists after photographing their cars with the murals in the background. They’re asking the court to decide that the artists have no copyright claims. In other words, they’re suing the artists to keep the artists from suing them. Which means the artists have to pay an attorney to represent them after their work was used without compensation. https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-mercedes-benz-sued-four-artists-murals-appeared-instagram-posts
--- End quote ---
Wow that's a good one and interesting.
SuperPhoto:
Interesting... I'm not quite what to say of that...
By creating a mural - it is now a 'public' work... Where naturally tourists, etc are going to be taking lots of pictures... So in one way I think it would be fine for a company to have it in the background - because it doesn't seem any different than say taking a picture in front of a house, skyscaper, etc...
But then I can see the artists being upset if they "knew" the company was making lots of money off of their artwork... and the sting, so wanting a slice of that cash... but I am not sure if this is just more or less greed (like "HEY! wait a sec, you mean I can make TONS of cash?!?!?!") Unless they commissioned the work saying "no photos allowed unless you pay me"
I'm not sure what the difference would be between someone say using unique works of architecture in their ads (i.e., eiffel tower, statue of liberty, etc, etc) and a mural... granted, I am not too familiar with this area - so as far as I know - you don't need "permission" (or to pay a fee) to use the statue of liberty/eiffel tower/etc in your ads, so not sure whether the murals have a leg to stand on either...
georgep7:
If I got it right, it is simple answered from "our" perspective, it would be an absolutely rejected
commercial clip if we submitted it without a intellectual property release from the artist?
Uncle Pete:
--- Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 05, 2019, 08:00 ---Interesting... I'm not quite what to say of that...
By creating a mural - it is now a 'public' work... Where naturally tourists, etc are going to be taking lots of pictures... So in one way I think it would be fine for a company to have it in the background - because it doesn't seem any different than say taking a picture in front of a house, skyscaper, etc...
But then I can see the artists being upset if they "knew" the company was making lots of money off of their artwork... and the sting, so wanting a slice of that cash... but I am not sure if this is just more or less greed (like "HEY! wait a sec, you mean I can make TONS of cash?!?!?!") Unless they commissioned the work saying "no photos allowed unless you pay me"
I'm not sure what the difference would be between someone say using unique works of architecture in their ads (i.e., eiffel tower, statue of liberty, etc, etc) and a mural... granted, I am not too familiar with this area - so as far as I know - you don't need "permission" (or to pay a fee) to use the statue of liberty/eiffel tower/etc in your ads, so not sure whether the murals have a leg to stand on either...
--- End quote ---
Yup, this will be interesting.
No I don't think that public work allows free use. Art and designs are protected. Buildings, plans and structures since 1991. ALso I'm sure the artists will claim commercial use.
There is something called right of panorama which could be the MBZ argument, that they were just shooting photos of the cars and the building with art, is incidental. They had permits to shoot in that area.
While I'm absolutely in favor of artists rights, they made the work. And I see this as commercial use. There's also an argument that the photos were made in a public setting, not featuring the art itself. I'm not buying the MBZ argument that the car transformed the art into something else. Their attorney might be claiming transformative appropriation, which has gone back and forth. I'm also against that, saying that stealing someone work and splattering new colors on it, makes it a new work.
I don't know, but I wish I had better access to legal channels, I'd love to track this one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version