General Motors has claimed the graffiti mural painted on a Detroit parking garage is “architectural work” and the automaker cannot be held responsible for copyright infringement.
Graffiti artist Adrian Falkner served GM the lawsuit last January and a court hearing is scheduled on Monday to hear arguments. Automotive News reported on Wednesday that GM will argue the “architectural work” to shield itself from any infringement.
“This right to photograph an architectural work extends to those portions of the work containing pictorial, graphic or sculptural elements,” the court filing states. “Because [Falkner’s] mural is painted onto an architectural work it falls squarely within the ‘pictorial representation’ exemption, and his copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.”
GM also claims the freelance photographer that shot the photo of the 2017 Cadillac XT5 for GM-branded social media was not aware the other part of the mural contained Falkner’s signature, which the artist says GM intentionally hid.
David Ludwig, of Washington, D.C., law firm Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, told AN the Cadillac situation is different from the mural appearing in a film or something similar.
“It is a still image versus a video, so it’s kind of right there on their website for all to see,” Ludwig said. “And even if it was more in the background, if it’s still a prominent piece of the ad, it’s going to support a claim.”
GM’s statement explained the situation in greater detail.
As a part of a program where Cadillac loans cars to a variety of artists to use in their work, Cadillac loaned an up-and-coming photographer a vehicle and captured a variety of images. The photographer provided Cadillac with the images with written permission to use in social media. The image was not part of a larger campaign and was only posted on GM-owned social channels.
Cadillac is a frequent and significant supporter of artists. Cadillac’s NYC Global Headquarters itself contains Cadillac House — a public space hosting exhibitions frequently. The brand’s active in many other realms supporting artists, designers and creators
Comments
Some broke artist looking for the easy path.
I’m sure his primary focus is to have the stage for a few minutes.
Tell that artist to sue the photographer who took the picture. That “photographer provided Cadillac with the images with written permission to use in social media.” So Cadillac and GM are not to blame if he had that work of art in the background, yet he gave “permission” to use it, not from the artist..
Good point.
The artist painted a freaking building. If he didn’t want it to be seen or photographed, he should have left the building alone.
Anything outside in open space is fair game for the public to see, visit, appreciate or not, and photograph if you want.
Let’s see, artists design the fabrics for Trump’s Chinese made ties , the camo patterns for Don Jr’s elephant hunts, graphics for Fox & Friends, they create the music for Limbaugh’s intro… the covers of books on copyright law. What do we need artists for? Really, why should we protect the interests and livelihoods of people whose skills take years, if not decades, to master?
Let’s get this straight: GM’s photographer chose that spot to photograph the car (on private property), solely to use that artist’s commissioned work. An advertisement was created which was blasted out for the world to see. Whose artwork was in it? Any guesses? Does it matter one bit that the *photographer* gave GM written permission to use his photos??? Or did they need it from the artist whose work was appropriated, purely for commercial intent?????????????????
BTW, the artist isn’t likely to recover much in the way of damages. But he’s making a killing off the publicity, LOL.
Chalk it up to GM’s lawyers and the agency/artist/photographer’s ‘Business Affairs’ people not running a tight enough ship.
Not a criticism – just the way things are in these litigious times. Happens in music a lot, too …
But the USPS used what they thought was a cleared stock photo of the Statue of Liberty for a forever stamp,
They instead used a photo of the Statue outside of NY, NY in Vegas. After 5 yrs of litigation and a two-week trial, the artist was awarded 3.55m.
Fair? Hard to argue a yes on that.
Sane? See above.
So lesson being, you can’t be too careful.
Which is hard, time consuming work:
The building owner, who contracted the artist (presumably), the photographer, even the architect of a building that needed some dressing up.
Crazy, but just the way it is.
If the above shown image is the incriminated one, I have to state that the grafitti on the building is only a side issue in the whole image. A photographic reproduction of the whole grafitti or parts of it alone would be a different case.
Besides, it can obviously be seen from a public space; there is no need to enter some enclosure to view it. This is what in German copyright law is called “Panoramafreiheit”.
People still refer to that thing as art. I have seen much nicer “art” on the wall in the paint section of a hardware store.