Murals are definitely in the IP spotlight this summer: after
the
Castillo case, here are two other
examples of an urban artist suing a corporation for copyright infringement.
Last February, as New York City was battling one of its
coldest winters ever, Maya Hayuk painted
ChemTrails NYC, a mural which was approximately 60 by 20 feet, on the
Houston Bowery wall. This wall stands at the corner of Houston and Bowery, on the Lower
East Side, and was originally used as a ‘canvas’ by Keith Haring in the early
80’s. In 2008, the year which would have seen Haring’s 50
th birthday,
several artists painted a tribute to him on the wall. The Houston Bowery wall
is privately owned and its owner regularly invites artists to paint on it. For
her mural, Mara Hayuk painted lines of bright colors intersecting to form
patterns of diamonds, with the paint sometimes dripping to cross over lines. The
artist registered her work with the Copyright Office, which issued copyright
registration No.VA1-173-957 on February 7.
Chem
Trails NYC can no longer be seen, as the wall now features another mural.
|
No Kat Was Harmed To Create This Picture |
The first suit is
Maya
Hayuk v. Coach Services, Inc. and Midley Inc., no 14 CV 6668. In the
complaint, plaintiff claims that Coach used
Chem
Trails NYC “
prominently in a photo
shot for Coach’s Spring 2014 line of apparel, footwear and bags” without her
permission. The photo shoot was a collaboration with PurseBlog, a site owned by
codefendant Midley, which published an
online promotional feature titled
Exclusive Look at the Coach Spring
Collection last spring. It showed models clutching Coach bags in fronts of
several NYC murals,
Chem Trails NYC
among them. According to the complaint, the mural was the backdrop for five of
these photographs.
Below each of the photographs was a link to an e-commerce
site which allowed interested viewers to purchase the bag shown in the photograph.
Defendants also used the photographs in their respective Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
pages. Coach also used it on its Tumblr blog, and used the photographs to sell
bags by linking them on its Facebook and
Twitter page to the Coach e-commerce
site page selling the bag shown in the photograph.
The second suit is Hayuk
v. Sony Music Entertainment et al, 14-cv-06659. Sony is the parent company
of co-defendant Epic Records, Sara Bareilles’record label. Hayuk claims that Sara
Bareilles featured Chem Trails NYC as
a background for promotional pictures which were used last may to advertise her
new album and upcoming tour. According to the complaint the images were also
used by the defendants on social media, were seen in a video filmed to promote
Bareilles’tour, and one photo was featured on the Ticketmaster page selling
tickets for the Bareilles’tour.
Hayuk is seeking damages, costs, award of profits earned
from the use of the work and a permanent injunction to cease using Chem Trails NYC. The website promoting
the Bareilles’music tour already features a modified version of the original
picture and no longer reproduces Hayuk’s mural. Both complaints state that
Hayuk “often licenses her artwork for use
on, among other things, apparel, consumer electronics, and sporting goods.” It
could thus be proven that she incurred damages because of loss of licensing revenues.
The fact that the mural was meant to be ephemeral may also be salient, as the
window of opportunity for the artist to profit commercially from her work was
short.
Both cases are also interesting as they show how marketing
is more and more visual (think Pinterest).
Social media can be used to distribute images quickly and easily, even infringing
ones, and their origins may be easily lost.
The source of the Sara Bareilles’ image on this page is Music marketing Tools.
Any VARA issues?
ReplyDelete@George: Thank you for your comment It is an interesting theory If you are right, the mural would nevertheless have been reproduced without authorization as it would be a rather faithful copy of the mural, including the paint-covered pebbles at its bottom.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous : The mural could be protected under VARA, as it is a work of visual art. VARA deals with moral rights. Under VARA, artists have the right to claim authorship of a work (right of attribution) and also have the right to prevent its distortion or mutilation or other modification which would be prejudicial to the artist’s honor or reputation. They also have the right to prevent its destruction if the work is “of recognized stature.”
The right of attribution gives the author the tight to oppose the work to be attributed to somebody else. The mural was not attributed to somebody else. It has not been defaced either, at least not by the defendants. However, the mural was covered by third-party graffiti s after a while. The artist could have then technically sue the authors of the graffitis under VARA. The mural is now destroyed, but that destruction was foreseen by the artist, as she knew the mural would be displayed only for a few months.
Marie
ReplyDeleteThe painting behind the model does seem to be a physically different painting. In the images of the actual mural the black strips seem to have no drips of magenta red running across them, where as the in the image with Sara Bareilles there is a large drip of red over the black stripe directly above her head.
@John Interesting...thank you! I will follow up with the case and will post further developments...
ReplyDelete