The altercation began when H&M chose a location for a fashion shoot. After deciding on a spray-painted handball court at a park in Brooklyn, H&M asked the city park whether it needed to pay royalties for featuring the mural in the shoot. After learning that the graffiti was unauthorized and the identity of the author unknown, H&M proceeded to use the art in its campaign. A few months later, the company received a cease and desist letter from the artist himself, Jason ‘Revok’ Williams, threatening further legal action.
H&M reasoned that because the art was produced illegally, Revok could not make any legal claims to his own art. This is a blow to the integrity of the artist’s craft because not only does H&M blatantly steal from them, but it attempts to justify the crime itself. When we strip the issue back to its legal roots, H&M does not have the law behind it. Two conditions must be met for copyright protection: the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. The law makes no mention that the work must be created under legal circumstances. Thus, by law, Revok’s work must be afforded legal protection.
Source: H&M Lawsuit: Exploiting Art for Commercial Gain | The Wake Magazine
Interesting Legal Question, also because I know that in Graphic Design and Programming, this rule applies but as we progress where does that line change about what is art
For reference, all licenses described in the choosealicense.com repository, in a table.
Source: Appendix | Choose a License
Getty Images has single-handedly redefined the entire photography market with the launch of a new embedding feature that will make more than 35 million images freely available to anyone for non-commercial usage.
via Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringement » British Journal of Photography.
and as predicted photography joins music and apps in the race to free
But by one count, more than 60 percent of all patent suits are now filed by non-practicing entities, up from 19 percent in 2006. And that does not count suits that are threatened but never filed because the target agrees to a settlement that would be cheaper than fighting the case.
via Extracting a Toll From a Patent ‘Troll’ – NYTimes.com.
Yes it is a problem that is accelerating and needs to be taken care of. The rest of the article briefly touches on a move the Supreme Court is considering, that makes when a patent troll loses they end up paying quite a lot instead of walking away scott-free like they do now.
Lodsys has 13 other pending cases in just the Eastern District of Texas. The company has sued a total of 192 users of Apple technology in the past three years, according to a recent study. It has threatened hundreds, if not thousands, more. Lodsys itself boasts that 500 companies have paid it for its patents, including “many world-leading corporations.”
Apple may be able to intervene in another one of those Texas cases, although it seems like there’s nothing to stop Lodsys from using the same “settle-and-dismiss” strategy it did here, since it has clearly found a judge willing to stick his head in the sand with regard to the broader issue.
Lodsys can be sure it will continue to draw Judge Gilstrap as long as it files its cases in Marshall, Texas. The other judge who considers patent cases filed there is US District Judge Leonard Davis, but since Judge Davis’ son William “Bo” Davis is Lodsys’ lawyer, the company’s cases will all be redirected to Gilstrap.
via Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage | Ars Technica.
ok i think texas should lose it’s right to hear patent lawsuits anymore