News Report
REVOK vs. H&M: This Is Not Just About Copyrights
March 19, 2018
by Seven Wu
H&M campaign photo
The multinational clothing-retail company H&M faces the outrage of the street art community.
In H&M’s recent sportswear campaign, it advertised a photograph and video of a model posing in front of the street artist Jason “REVOK” Williams’s graffiti without recognizing the copyright of his artwork. Williams had his lawyer send H&M a cease and desist letter on January 8, asking the company to halt its commercial campaign that violated REVOK’s copyright. According to The Washington Post’s news article “H&M’s battle with the artist Revok shows how street art is being taken seriously”, H&M soon fired back by filing a lawsuit statement against Williams, saying, “under the circumstances, in which your client’s claimed ‘artwork’ is the product of criminal conduct, Mr. Williams has no copyrights to assert. The entitlement to copyright protection is a privilege under federal law that does not extend to illegally created works.”
Artistically speaking, graffiti has been regarded as a product of pop culture, signifying the freedom of speech and passions of the younger generation. Graffiti artists like Banksy and JR, whose artworks and stories are featured in Oscar-nominated feature documentaries, are shaping the society and politics with their reflective graffiti arts. During the cold war era, the Berlin wall of Western Germany’s side was fully painted with graffiti arts. These graffiti arts express the anger and protests of the people against the governments who built up the wall. Can these graffiti arts be regarded as “criminal conduct” like H&M stated and be deprived of all copyrights? The answer is no.
However, many graffiti arts are outlawed by the government and face the threats of instant removal under the jurisdiction that they are vandalism. In the United States, unauthorized graffiti artists painting on public property can be subjected to fines and even arrestment under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It is true that graffiti on the walls of public buildings or private houses may be disturbing and troublesome for many.
Louis Vuitton campaign photo
Although many graffiti arts are unlawfully created, it is degrading to align all graffiti arts with “criminal conduct.” In fact, some graffiti artists have stepped out of the alley and have come to the commercial market by collaborating with mainstream fashion brands, singers, and video photographers. The French luxury brand Louis Vuitton has worked with multiple graffiti artists in crafting its designer bags and scarfs. Justin Bieber’s viral “Where Are U Now” music video features graffiti arts as its major visual theme. These commercial collaborations between graffiti artists and mainstream companies signify the fact that graffiti arts can be and should be respected with copyright privileges when used commercially.
Kaws's Instagram story feed
H&M’s reply to the copyright legitimacy of street arts set off a furious flame within the street art community. Renowned graffiti artist and designer KAWS denounced H&M’s statement by posting a drawing “RIP H&M” on his Instagram story. Other graffiti artists like OG Slick have expressed their anger through graffiti and paintings on clothes. The graffiti-loving masses posted comments and photos with the hashtags like “#boycotthandm” and “HYPOCRISY” to join the war between street artists and H&M.
According to The Washington Post, Philippa Loengard, the deputy director of Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, has clarified the copyright legitimacy of graffiti arts by saying, “At its core, a copyright requires only two things: that the work is original and that it is a tangible medium of expression.” In H&M’s case, Williams’s graffiti art has fulfilled both criteria.
There are people and even graffiti artists who snubbed at Williams’s lawsuit against H&M, believing that he is overreacting by making such a big deal against H&M. According to Vice China’s news report, a Chinese graffiti artist named RAY says “H&M did not steal REVOK’s work and sell it for money. They just use his artwork as a background. The more you paint and spray on the street, the less clear street view it is for people to shoot.” This statement can certainly be legit if the shootings are for non-commercial use, but it cannot stand in the H&M’s commercial campaign case.
In H&M’s campaign photograph, the model’s backflipping action coordinates with Williams’s wavy graffiti art to create a smooth motion photograph. In other words, the photographer of this campaign intentionally paired the model with Williams’s graffiti art to create visual impact. It is true that unlegalized graffiti arts take up the clean street walls, but it does not mean that companies like H&M can use graffiti arts for commercial gain without recognizing the artists’ copyright privileges. The battle between the street art community and H&M is not just about copyrights. Most importantly, it is the street artists’ battle with the powerful corporation to earn themselves respect and the right to speak.
According to HYPEBEAST’s news report “UPDATE: H&M Files Lawsuit Against Graffiti Artist, Denies Copyright Protection”, H&M has released a new statement, saying:
“H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank you for your comments and concerns, as always, your voice matters to us.”
Is this statement from H&M signifying a victory for the street art community? At least we know that street arts are being recognized respectfully and earnestly now.