Skip to content
🚨 15,000+ ORDERS 🚨 929-266-7971 🚨
🚨 15,000+ ORDERS 🚨 929-266-7971 🚨
Revok vs H&M: Does graffiti count as intellectual property?

Revok vs H&M: Does graffiti count as intellectual property?

 

 

Graffiti artists have taken to social media, voicing their outrage and urging a boycott of H&M, the well-known Swedish clothing brand. The company's recent legal action against a graffiti artist, Revok, has ignited a heated debate over artists' rights and the appropriation of their work.

The dispute arose when H&M featured Revok's graffiti artwork, displayed on a Williamsburg handball court, in their latest advertising campaign without seeking his consent. Revok responded by sending a cease and desist letter to H&M in January, demanding that they halt the circulation of his work on social media and provide compensation for the unauthorized use.

In a surprising move, H&M rejected Revok's claims, arguing that the graffiti, situated on New York City property, constitutes vandalism and, therefore, lacks copyright protection. As tensions escalated, Revok threatened to pursue legal action if an agreeable resolution was not reached. In response, H&M decided to file a lawsuit against the artist.

The case has ignited discussions around the fundamental rights of street artists and the artistic ownership of their work. Street artists argue that their graffiti pieces are expressions of personal creativity and should be respected as such. On the other hand, corporations like H&M often view such artworks as public property, devoid of copyright protection.

As the graffiti community stands united in support of Revok, this legal battle holds broader implications for the recognition and protection of street art as a legitimate art form. It highlights the intricate balance between artistic freedom and corporate interests, especially as street art evolves from an underground subculture to a celebrated cultural phenomenon.

The outcome of the Revok vs. H&M case could significantly shape the future of graffiti art and influence the rights of artists to safeguard their creations. The debate surrounding graffiti's place in the art world and its commercialization remains at the forefront, igniting passions on both sides.

As artists and activists amplify their call for an H&M boycott, the clash between artistic expression and corporate appropriation continues to spark discussions and fuel the quest for recognition and protection of street artists' rights. How graffiti art will be perceived and valued in legal realms remains uncertain, but the impact of this case will undoubtedly be felt throughout the artistic landscape.

Previous article Best graffiti marker in 2023?
Next article How to Improve your Graffiti Handstyle

Comments

nuse - August 9, 2023

really hope revok wins this case. graffiti is a legitimate form of art and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to swoop in and claim these pieces as their own.

Leave a comment

* Required fields