Street art news hit the BBC recently, involving allegations that clothing company Boohoo used artist images in an extensive advertising campaign without payment, credit or even consent. Details in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/art...ance-when-street-artists-and-big-brands-clash
I have featured one of the artists concerned in this thread, in recent months I posted one of SPZero76's images in Stockwell, seen here:
View attachment 432778
I note from the BBC article that Boohoo are saying "..In this instance we relied upon the venue's assurance that all artistic works were licensed. We have subsequently been informed by a number of artists that the venue’s assurances were not correct and are seeking to resolve the situation with all parties concerned"
Well they are certainly dragging their heels over it. The billboard campaign was plastered all over the London Underground network, and I'm sure much further afield, in the run up to, during, and following the World Cup. And the images have only just be taken down, so when/if a settlement is arrived at, I hope it takes into consideration the length of time the campaign has already run and how extensive it was.
I saw the original post on the London Calling blog back in May, and wrote to the press team at Boohoo at the time, asking for a response to the allegations they used the images without permission. The photo-shoot deliberately includes artworks and has obviously been chosen to appeal to the companies target audience, and so they can be associated with the cool new street art medium.
I urged them to reconsider their stance, and suggested it was going to be bad PR to be behaving in this way. Boohoo's target audience is social media savvy, as are many of the artists concerned, and in the court of public opinion it looked like being a massive corporate own goal. Shortly after the original blog post in May I saw an artwork arranged by the London Calling crew I assume, stating Boohoo steals artists work. Here it is at one of the regular street art haunts by the Nomadic Community Garden. I don't know the bird, some kind of vulture?
View attachment 432779
I sent this image to Boohoo with my email as an example of bad PR they were already getting, and that the artists were likely to continue to kick up a fuss.
I also asked them how such practices allied with Boohoo's own social responsibility code of conduct, which contains the lines "
We pride ourselves on our inclusive culture and team spirit and we believe in operating in a fair and sustainable manner", and
"The Company continues to assess a number of options with regard to how it can improve upon its current ethical position"
Boohoo says it has its own in-house creative teams, but these were obviously pretty rubbish as they have not used their own work. A look at the Boohoo website to see the new photos now the street art ones have been removed confirms this.
It appears the creative team had not done their homework. A national advertising campaign costing vast sums and you have not checked the images were licensed for use? Really? Due *cough* diligence.
Artists should be aware of the laws that relate to them. There are designated spots it may be permitted, but artists may get their collars felt if caught doing graffiti elsewhere, and could be charged under the Criminal Damage Act, given Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO's) and given fixed penalty notices under The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. See here for more:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/graffiti/
There is a common held misconception that because street art is on the street it can be freely used. In this case the art is not in a public space but a private property, but the artist still retains intellectual property rights to their work.
http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/lega...rtising-street-art-and-intellectual-property/
I am obviously taking loads of pictures of these artworks and sharing them across this small corner of the web, and where I am able to identify the artist I always do and give them credit. But I am not doing it for commercial gain. Boohoo's use of the images is undoubtedly for commercial gain. You cannot use other peoples images for national advertising campaigns without permission. Imagine if the artist was an Arsenal supporter with a livelong hatred of Tottenham, and he went on the tube one day and saw his art work being used to sell clothing for a Spurs player
.
I know I'm not an artist and don't have any financial claim against Boohoo, but I know which side I'm on. I am a lowly peasant, but I did not get a reply of any kind from Boohoo to my email back in May. After seeing the BBC link at the top of this thread I sent them another one, together with my first one again in case they missed it
. I have not had any kind of reply to that either. I thought I was doing them a favour. I'm not really bothered about them replying to me, but I shall be watching to see they do sort this out to the artists satisfaction. And if they don't I'll continue to call them out on the inter-web, and try and help in a tiny way to bringing increasing social media pressure for them to do the right thing.
Apologies for the wordy interlude, but thought some info on the legalities, existing and ongoing may be interesting to some. And to give a heads-up to
@woodenspoons for his upcoming northern tree-art escapades
And finally after all those words I feel duty bound to supply you with a photo or two. Here's a pad303 one that looks like its from the new Tom Hardy Venom movie.
View attachment 432780
And I came across another in the part mechanical, part animal series by Ardif, this time a hermit crab.
View attachment 432781
