Yeah, sure... This tweet would likely have given the Olympics more media attention on Twitter but most of the followers of Chris Chavez would already be following the Olympics too. So, no new audience here.
By taking it down, the Olympics now gets mentioned on TechDirt and several other websites where there are people (like me) who don't care about the Olympics, yet we now see them mentioned again. Worse, search engines will no doubt pick up this article and connect the Olympics with keywords from TechDirt so even more Google Searches will end up with them, creating a bigger audience.
Sure, the Tweet gave them some attention. But taking it down gives them a lot more.
So instead of writing about the Olympics, we should actually stop referring to them!
Google is claiming TikTok broke the rules and told them to quit with that. It shows that TikTok is collecting more data than they mention to their users. That's suspicious.
TikTok is not the only one who tries to break the rules. Any company that does so should be punished. It must be made clear that they cannot bypass any rules for their own gain.
See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/08/12/tiktok-google-android-breaking-rules-secretly-tra ck-android-users/
While TikTok might not seem to be really harmful as it just collects small videos of users, there is something that violates the rules that Google has set! An TikTok is violating this rule to collect more data than they're allowed to and without notifying the end user.
TikTok collects the MAC address from each device and sends this home. This allows TikTik but also many other apps to basically identify each user through this unique code. TikTok has also been secretly collecting clipboard data in Apple devices.
TikTok is accused of tracking users. Collecting MAC addresses is just that. So a ban on TikTok might be a good idea, until TikTok starts to behave. But as they removed the offensive code from the latest code, they should be complying right now.
Why would it have to be removed just so someone can make a picture of the building? What if the restaurant owner doesn't want the mural to be removed as it would limit people from photographing his business?
If the graffiti wasn't approved then it would be no problem to just paint over it and send the bill to the artist. But in this case, I think the artist did have permission.
Personally, I think photography tends to invade people's privacy and can be questionable if people are allowed to photograph anything they like and publish the pictures for profit. It's disrespectful, at least.
There's the freedom of panorama that applies to buildings and statues are considered buildings for this purpose. But not paintings. This means the Charging Bull on Wall Street can be used in pictures but a painting of the same statue on a wall could not!
Also, it is possible for copyrights being violated yet the artist might not care. For example, movie posters are very popular yet they are copyright protected! But theatres and moviemakers don't mind those posters being spread around.
But with these murals, the authors started to protest. One of the reasons is because Mercedes has paid before for the use of this kind of art in their advertisements. So, why not now?
Well, there's the freedom of Panorama in Britain, so no.
Also, Buckingham palace is old so the copyright has expired.
And your car is no piece of art. :)
Did you publish those pictures anywhere? If so, the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel might send you a bill once they know who you are.
Also, TechDirt has an article about it. Read https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050202/1946248.shtml
All I do is point out copyright in Europe, which is reasonably similar to copyright in the US, with the exception of fair use. If the murals were in Europe then Mercedes would be in trouble no matter where they were located or where they published those pictures. But the murals are in Detroit so European laws won't apply.
But as the laws are similar, the only way for Mercedes to avoid trouble is claiming fair use.
Actually, there's also the "Freedom of panorama" laws in many nations that could save Mercedes, except that the US is a bit more strict in this regard than most European countries. Only France and Italy don't allow a freedom of panorama. But in the Netherlands, they could have used that excuse instead of fair use and get away with it.
In the US, you are free to make pictures of buildings but not of art. These murals are art, even though they are on buildings. Because of that, it's not covered by the freedom of panorama in the US. In France, they might not even be allowed to photograph the building.
Well, the rule in Europe is that it lasts the lifetime of it's creator plus 70 years. The creator of these lights is still alive even though the creator of the tower died in 1923. The lights were installed in 1985, although the tower did have lighting before. Just not the artistic lights it has since 1985.
Actually, that depends on who holds the copyrights. In the USA, most public art would have the Government as copyright holder as public art is considered "Work-for-hire" where the government did the hiring. The Charging Bull statue in New York, for example, has thus become more or less under control by the government. The original author can't make claims as he basically "gave" that statue away.
But art on private property that's visible from public space is a bit different. That wall is private property. The mural is thus on private property.
There's a good discussion about this at https://alj.artrepreneur.com/copyright-public-art/ where they suggest the USA would apply a fair use test, while Sweden just considers it a violation. Yet the way Mercedes used these murals might mean it's not fair use...
The difference between Europe and the US is basically the definition of "Fair use". They're otherwise very similar. But fair use isn't recognized in Europe so Mercedes could not use that as an excuse in Europe, while they can try in the USA.
But fair use for commercial usage of art without a license? That's probably going to fail...
Nope, as Google isn't making money on Street view. It is not commercial. But Google has been told to mask faces and license plates in those street view images and occasionally has to censor other parts too.
I pointed out Europe as Europe has no "Fair use" clause like the US. So in Europe, Mercedes would definitely lose this. But in the USA, they might get away with this fair use claim.
Still, even the US will allow copyright to artwork in public. TechDirt reported about something like this in the past: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170412/11215937137/bull-statue-copyright-claim-is-ridiculous-her es-why-it-just-might-work.shtml
The "Charging Bull" statue in New York is protected by copyright so it has the same protection as this mural. Use of this statue in pictures for advertisements might thus be unwise. Making a copy of that statue would also be unwise. Even though the statue was placed there without permission!
Of course, you could make art based on a charging bull. You just can't make art based on this statue.
The artist doesn't own the wall so if the owner destroys the art then that's okay. But he still owns the work he did, no matter what happens afterwards with it.
There isn't anything physical being stolen here, but Mercedes is making use of something that isn't theirs to use.
As for legal and illegal graffiti... Well, the illegal graffiti is a misdemeanor and the artist could be forced to pay a fine and the costs for clean-up. It's still their work, though. And if it's artistic then it has value. You cannot take this value of their work and use it for your own commercial purposes without compensating the original artist. Not even if the artist was arrested for making it and ordered to clean it up.
As for promoting art. That's not the purpose of art. Art is meant to make people think about something. To bring emotions to people who look at it. Artists don't always want their art to be promoted as they would become mainstream afterwards. Many artists are rather more exclusive with just a small group of followers. Art isn't about promotions and making profits...
I'm not sure about laws in Detroit but if they are similar to Europe then those murals would be protected by copyright and Mercedes would have violated it. It's that simple. It's just that in Europe, there have been various cases in court similar to this and the artists generally won.
The main difference is that the US has a "Fair use" system that might allow an escape. But as the pictures are used for their own commercial promotions, that would be unlikely.
As for people taking pictures of these murals to make profits, that's not fair either. You're basically profiting from someone else's work.
As for Instagram... That's where the safe harbors laws apply. As a provider, they are not responsible for any content as long as they remove some content after receiving a DMCA complaint. This they do.
In Europe? In many cases, yes!
But it must be clear the buildings have an artistic value, the same as with any other copyrighted material. Most houses aren't built to be artistic. But in Europe houses are actually protected by copyright if they qualify as works of art. Same with statues, btw.
Even a car could be considered artistic but they're generally aren't.
As for the use of these murals in those Mercedes pictures. The murals are still very noticeable in the pictures and you don't have to use all of a piece of work to violate copyrights. The murals do add value to the pictures as they add colors to something that would otherwise be very greyish...
Public space or not, the artwork is still private property. So if you leave your car on a public road, would I be allowed to take it and drive it away?
The same is true about art. The artist intended their art to be shown in a specific location for a specific audience. By making pictures of it and publishing them, the author basically loses control over their own work. That cannot be allowed without compensation. And this compensation is the royalties they demand.
Why would they need to make art for profit? They make it to beautify the area but if someone uses it for commercial purposes then paying royalties would be a requirement in my opinion. Mercedes is trying to sell more cars by using their art so the artists deserve a share.
Free speech...
Free speech is only allowed as long as people speak about things I like. :)
Smart move by the Olympics...
Re: Re: But TikTak IS violating the rules!
Google is claiming TikTok broke the rules and told them to quit with that. It shows that TikTok is collecting more data than they mention to their users. That's suspicious.
TikTok is not the only one who tries to break the rules. Any company that does so should be punished. It must be made clear that they cannot bypass any rules for their own gain.
But TikTak IS violating the rules!
See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/08/12/tiktok-google-android-breaking-rules-secretly-tra ck-android-users/
While TikTok might not seem to be really harmful as it just collects small videos of users, there is something that violates the rules that Google has set! An TikTok is violating this rule to collect more data than they're allowed to and without notifying the end user.
TikTok collects the MAC address from each device and sends this home. This allows TikTik but also many other apps to basically identify each user through this unique code. TikTok has also been secretly collecting clipboard data in Apple devices.
TikTok is accused of tracking users. Collecting MAC addresses is just that. So a ban on TikTok might be a good idea, until TikTok starts to behave. But as they removed the offensive code from the latest code, they should be complying right now.
Re:
Why would it have to be removed just so someone can make a picture of the building? What if the restaurant owner doesn't want the mural to be removed as it would limit people from photographing his business?
If the graffiti wasn't approved then it would be no problem to just paint over it and send the bill to the artist. But in this case, I think the artist did have permission.
Personally, I think photography tends to invade people's privacy and can be questionable if people are allowed to photograph anything they like and publish the pictures for profit. It's disrespectful, at least.
Re:
There's the freedom of panorama that applies to buildings and statues are considered buildings for this purpose. But not paintings. This means the Charging Bull on Wall Street can be used in pictures but a painting of the same statue on a wall could not!
Also, it is possible for copyrights being violated yet the artist might not care. For example, movie posters are very popular yet they are copyright protected! But theatres and moviemakers don't mind those posters being spread around.
But with these murals, the authors started to protest. One of the reasons is because Mercedes has paid before for the use of this kind of art in their advertisements. So, why not now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there's the freedom of Panorama in Britain, so no.
Also, Buckingham palace is old so the copyright has expired.
And your car is no piece of art. :)
Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Did you publish those pictures anywhere? If so, the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel might send you a bill once they know who you are.
Also, TechDirt has an article about it. Read https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050202/1946248.shtml
Re: EU, eh...
All I do is point out copyright in Europe, which is reasonably similar to copyright in the US, with the exception of fair use. If the murals were in Europe then Mercedes would be in trouble no matter where they were located or where they published those pictures. But the murals are in Detroit so European laws won't apply.
But as the laws are similar, the only way for Mercedes to avoid trouble is claiming fair use.
Actually, there's also the "Freedom of panorama" laws in many nations that could save Mercedes, except that the US is a bit more strict in this regard than most European countries. Only France and Italy don't allow a freedom of panorama. But in the Netherlands, they could have used that excuse instead of fair use and get away with it.
In the US, you are free to make pictures of buildings but not of art. These murals are art, even though they are on buildings. Because of that, it's not covered by the freedom of panorama in the US. In France, they might not even be allowed to photograph the building.
Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Well, the rule in Europe is that it lasts the lifetime of it's creator plus 70 years. The creator of these lights is still alive even though the creator of the tower died in 1923. The lights were installed in 1985, although the tower did have lighting before. Just not the artistic lights it has since 1985.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Actually, that depends on who holds the copyrights. In the USA, most public art would have the Government as copyright holder as public art is considered "Work-for-hire" where the government did the hiring. The Charging Bull statue in New York, for example, has thus become more or less under control by the government. The original author can't make claims as he basically "gave" that statue away.
But art on private property that's visible from public space is a bit different. That wall is private property. The mural is thus on private property.
There's a good discussion about this at https://alj.artrepreneur.com/copyright-public-art/ where they suggest the USA would apply a fair use test, while Sweden just considers it a violation. Yet the way Mercedes used these murals might mean it's not fair use...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
The difference between Europe and the US is basically the definition of "Fair use". They're otherwise very similar. But fair use isn't recognized in Europe so Mercedes could not use that as an excuse in Europe, while they can try in the USA.
But fair use for commercial usage of art without a license? That's probably going to fail...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, as Google isn't making money on Street view. It is not commercial. But Google has been told to mask faces and license plates in those street view images and occasionally has to censor other parts too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
I pointed out Europe as Europe has no "Fair use" clause like the US. So in Europe, Mercedes would definitely lose this. But in the USA, they might get away with this fair use claim.
Still, even the US will allow copyright to artwork in public. TechDirt reported about something like this in the past: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170412/11215937137/bull-statue-copyright-claim-is-ridiculous-her es-why-it-just-might-work.shtml
The "Charging Bull" statue in New York is protected by copyright so it has the same protection as this mural. Use of this statue in pictures for advertisements might thus be unwise. Making a copy of that statue would also be unwise. Even though the statue was placed there without permission!
Of course, you could make art based on a charging bull. You just can't make art based on this statue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
The artist doesn't own the wall so if the owner destroys the art then that's okay. But he still owns the work he did, no matter what happens afterwards with it.
There isn't anything physical being stolen here, but Mercedes is making use of something that isn't theirs to use.
As for legal and illegal graffiti... Well, the illegal graffiti is a misdemeanor and the artist could be forced to pay a fine and the costs for clean-up. It's still their work, though. And if it's artistic then it has value. You cannot take this value of their work and use it for your own commercial purposes without compensating the original artist. Not even if the artist was arrested for making it and ordered to clean it up.
As for promoting art. That's not the purpose of art. Art is meant to make people think about something. To bring emotions to people who look at it. Artists don't always want their art to be promoted as they would become mainstream afterwards. Many artists are rather more exclusive with just a small group of followers. Art isn't about promotions and making profits...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
I'm not sure about laws in Detroit but if they are similar to Europe then those murals would be protected by copyright and Mercedes would have violated it. It's that simple. It's just that in Europe, there have been various cases in court similar to this and the artists generally won.
The main difference is that the US has a "Fair use" system that might allow an escape. But as the pictures are used for their own commercial promotions, that would be unlikely.
As for people taking pictures of these murals to make profits, that's not fair either. You're basically profiting from someone else's work.
As for Instagram... That's where the safe harbors laws apply. As a provider, they are not responsible for any content as long as they remove some content after receiving a DMCA complaint. This they do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
In Europe? In many cases, yes!
But it must be clear the buildings have an artistic value, the same as with any other copyrighted material. Most houses aren't built to be artistic. But in Europe houses are actually protected by copyright if they qualify as works of art. Same with statues, btw.
Even a car could be considered artistic but they're generally aren't.
As for the use of these murals in those Mercedes pictures. The murals are still very noticeable in the pictures and you don't have to use all of a piece of work to violate copyrights. The murals do add value to the pictures as they add colors to something that would otherwise be very greyish...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Public space or not, the artwork is still private property. So if you leave your car on a public road, would I be allowed to take it and drive it away?
The same is true about art. The artist intended their art to be shown in a specific location for a specific audience. By making pictures of it and publishing them, the author basically loses control over their own work. That cannot be allowed without compensation. And this compensation is the royalties they demand.
Re: Re: Re:
But you're not the one who decides how much royalties an artist can charge. If you think it's worthless then don't use it in your advertisements!
Re: Re: Re:
Why would they need to make art for profit? They make it to beautify the area but if someone uses it for commercial purposes then paying royalties would be a requirement in my opinion. Mercedes is trying to sell more cars by using their art so the artists deserve a share.
More comments from Lisa Westveld >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lisa Westveld.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt