This links to the home page
Art Law Blog
FILTERS
  • All Categories0
    • All Categories
    • 5 Pointz
    • Art Exhibitions
    • Art Galleries
    • Art Market
    • Auction
    • Authentication
    • Contracts
    • Copyright
    • Fair Use
    • Fine Art
    • Firm Update
    • Forfeiture
    • Forgeries
    • Foundations
    • Gagosian
    • Graffiti
    • Grossman LLP
    • James Castle
    • Legal Developments
    • Money Laundering
    • Museums
    • Native American Art
    • Nazi-looted Art
    • Ponzi Schemes
    • Provenance
    • Public Art
    • Richard Prince
    • Stolen Artwork
    • Street Art
    • Trademark
    • Uncategorized
    • VARA
  • All Attorneys0
    • All Attorneys
    • Judd B. Grossman
    • Kate Lucas
    • Webster D. McBride
    • Emily Andersen
    • Jacquie Jakimowicz
  • All Practices0
    • All Practices
    • Art Law
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Securities Litigation
  • All Months0
    • All Months
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • October 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
  • McDonald's Sued For Copying Graffiti Art
    10/10/2016
    When international fast-food chain McDonald’s launched a campaign featuring images of graffiti art decorating some of its restaurants, the restaurant opened itself up to litigation asserting, among other things, copyright and trademark claims by artists who say their work has been copied without permission.  As graffiti art has become increasingly artistically and commercially valuable in recent years, courts and litigants have had to examine how copyright law applies to this unique art form.

    Berreau v. McDonald’s Corp.

    Earlier this week, the administrator of the estate of late graffiti artist Dash Snow filed a complaint in federal court against burger giant McDonald’s, alleging that the fast-food chain has been using reproductions of Snow’s graffiti “as décor in hundreds of McDonald’s restaurants.”

    The estate alleges that McDonald’s, to appeal to young urban customers, has launched an international campaign including television commercials and in-store displays featuring graffiti artwork.  As part of this campaign, the complaint alleges, McDonald’s purposely copied without permission “stylized versions of [Snow’s] signature and logo,” “SACE,” which has been prominently featured in McDonald’s new graffiti-themed restaurants.  The estate says it has asked McDonald’s to cease its use of Snow’s work, to no avail.

    The first claim is for straightforward copyright infringement.  But because McDonald’s also allegedly misappropriated what the complaint calls “source-identifying elements” of Snow’s work, i.e., his pseudonym and signature, the complaint also sets forth claims for “falsification of copyright management information” under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; trademark claims under the federal Lanham Act; and state law claims for unfair competition and negligence.  To bolster these claims, the complaint emphasizes that the problem is not just the copying, but that the placement of Snow’s work is “the largest and most prominent element on display” in the restaurants, surrounded by more “generic” graffiti scribbles, thus effectively “suggesting that Mr. Snow created all of the surrounding artwork” displayed in the restaurants; that his work was “singled out and spotlighted in media coverage” of these newly decorated restaurants; and that the overall effect is to imply that Snow authorized and endorsed the use.  The complaint even states that some news accounts have mentioned Snow in connection with the campaign, suggesting that McDonald’s has succeeded in creating a false impression that the use was authorized.

    The complaint explains that Snow carefully controlled the use of his work, and that McDonald’s commercial use of it damages the “street cred” of his brand.  The relief sought includes not only damages and disgorgement of McDonald’s profits attributable to the complained-of conduct, but injunctive relief including the removal of Snow’s work from all McDonald’s locations.

    Rosenbaum v. McDonald’s Corp.

    Snow’s estate is not the first plaintiff to sue McDonald’s over its graffiti décor campaign.  This spring, a less-publicized but quite similar suit was filed by L.A.-based graffiti artist “Norm” (real name: Eric Rosenbaum), who alleged that photographs of a graffiti work he created in Brooklyn were being displayed as wallpaper in dozens of McDonald’s locations “in Europe and Asia.”  His complaint, among other things, alleges that he actually lost other business partnerships because potential partners did not wish to associate themselves with an artist whom they perceived to be working with McDonald’s.  His claims were similar to Snow’s: copyright, Lanham Act, misappropriation of likeness, and false advertising.  Norm’s case, however, has since been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice to possible refiling.  Court filings suggest that the dismissal may be related to an inquiry by the court as to why the case should not be transferred to New York or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, given that the work at issue is in New York and the alleged infringing activities occurred abroad; thus, it seems possible that the case will resurface in another court.  See Docket No. 16-cv-2063 (C.D. Cal.).

    Graffiti Art and Copyright

    Graffiti art, like tattoo art, uses an unconventional “canvas.”  But that doesn’t mean these art forms don’t enjoy copyright protection.  The primary statutory requirements for copyright protection are that the work must be sufficiently original, and that it must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression.  Although graffiti might someday be painted over, it generally is sufficiently permanent and stable—“fixed,” in statutory terms—to be copyrightable.  And while it’s possible to envision graffiti that is not “original” enough to be copyrightable (perhaps a generic statement like “Kilroy was here” in a plain, unremarkable style of writing), the threshold for originality in copyright law generally is relatively low and many works of graffiti should qualify.  And while it’s arguable that graffiti that is created illegally should not enjoy copyright protection, that position has not gained much support in case law or scholarship; moreover, the distinction between legal street art and illegal graffiti may be unhelpful to some defendants, given that it’s not unheard of for graffiti artists to do their work with the permission of—or even at the behest of—those who own the property on which the graffiti appears.

    A defendant might also be able to avoid copyright liability for copying graffiti by invoking a fair use defense.  For example, a few years ago, the rock band Green Day prevailed on a fair use defense in a lawsuit over their use of a graffiti artwork in a backdrop for their live concert performances.  But important to the court’s ruling in that case was evidence that the artwork in question had never appeared on merchandise or promotional materials advertising the band or its concerts or music; a fair use defense is generally less likely to succeed where the would-be infringer used another’s work in a patently commercial way, as McDonald’s apparently did here.  Moreover, courts are sometimes reluctant to rule on fair use issues early in a case, preferring to wait until parties have engaged in discovery, meaning that even a defendant with a reasonable fair use defense may nevertheless incur significant litigation costs.

    Recent years have brought an increase in litigation by graffiti artists and tattoo artists seeking to defend their work from copyright infringement by larger consumer brands.  For example, we have written before about graffiti artist Rime’s lawsuit against fashion house Moschino, which incorporated some of Rime’s artwork into high-end couture garments; that case settled this past summer, following a ruling in which a federal court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss Rime’s claims (which included copyright, trademark, and unfair business practice claims).  See Docket No. 15-cv-5900 (C.D. Cal.).  Other cases involving major corporate defendants like Coach and American Eagle have also ended in confidential settlements.  See Docket No. 14-cv-6668 (S.D.N.Y.) and Docket No. 14-cv-5618 (S.D.N.Y.).

    Such cases suggest that many defendants—often, large consumer brands—either do not understand that graffiti art qualifies for copyright protection (so they assume they cannot be legally liable for infringement), or they are gambling that, as a practical matter, street artists lack the wherewithal or resources to protect their rights (so they assume they can infringe with little risk of being held responsible).  But as these cases continue to arise, work their way through the courts, and garner public attention, those interested in “borrowing” graffiti art images—particularly if the images are to be used in commercial ventures—would be well-advised to reassess those flawed assumptions, or at the very least consult legal counsel for an expert opinion before they do so.
This links to the home page
Art Law Blog
  • McDonald's Sued For Copying Graffiti Art
    10/10/2016
    When international fast-food chain McDonald’s launched a campaign featuring images of graffiti art decorating some of its restaurants, the restaurant opened itself up to litigation asserting, among other things, copyright and trademark claims by artists who say their work has been copied without permission.  As graffiti art has become increasingly artistically and commercially valuable in recent years, courts and litigants have had to examine how copyright law applies to this unique art form.

    Berreau v. McDonald’s Corp.

    Earlier this week, the administrator of the estate of late graffiti artist Dash Snow filed a complaint in federal court against burger giant McDonald’s, alleging that the fast-food chain has been using reproductions of Snow’s graffiti “as décor in hundreds of McDonald’s restaurants.”

    The estate alleges that McDonald’s, to appeal to young urban customers, has launched an international campaign including television commercials and in-store displays featuring graffiti artwork.  As part of this campaign, the complaint alleges, McDonald’s purposely copied without permission “stylized versions of [Snow’s] signature and logo,” “SACE,” which has been prominently featured in McDonald’s new graffiti-themed restaurants.  The estate says it has asked McDonald’s to cease its use of Snow’s work, to no avail.

    The first claim is for straightforward copyright infringement.  But because McDonald’s also allegedly misappropriated what the complaint calls “source-identifying elements” of Snow’s work, i.e., his pseudonym and signature, the complaint also sets forth claims for “falsification of copyright management information” under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; trademark claims under the federal Lanham Act; and state law claims for unfair competition and negligence.  To bolster these claims, the complaint emphasizes that the problem is not just the copying, but that the placement of Snow’s work is “the largest and most prominent element on display” in the restaurants, surrounded by more “generic” graffiti scribbles, thus effectively “suggesting that Mr. Snow created all of the surrounding artwork” displayed in the restaurants; that his work was “singled out and spotlighted in media coverage” of these newly decorated restaurants; and that the overall effect is to imply that Snow authorized and endorsed the use.  The complaint even states that some news accounts have mentioned Snow in connection with the campaign, suggesting that McDonald’s has succeeded in creating a false impression that the use was authorized.

    The complaint explains that Snow carefully controlled the use of his work, and that McDonald’s commercial use of it damages the “street cred” of his brand.  The relief sought includes not only damages and disgorgement of McDonald’s profits attributable to the complained-of conduct, but injunctive relief including the removal of Snow’s work from all McDonald’s locations.

    Rosenbaum v. McDonald’s Corp.

    Snow’s estate is not the first plaintiff to sue McDonald’s over its graffiti décor campaign.  This spring, a less-publicized but quite similar suit was filed by L.A.-based graffiti artist “Norm” (real name: Eric Rosenbaum), who alleged that photographs of a graffiti work he created in Brooklyn were being displayed as wallpaper in dozens of McDonald’s locations “in Europe and Asia.”  His complaint, among other things, alleges that he actually lost other business partnerships because potential partners did not wish to associate themselves with an artist whom they perceived to be working with McDonald’s.  His claims were similar to Snow’s: copyright, Lanham Act, misappropriation of likeness, and false advertising.  Norm’s case, however, has since been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice to possible refiling.  Court filings suggest that the dismissal may be related to an inquiry by the court as to why the case should not be transferred to New York or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, given that the work at issue is in New York and the alleged infringing activities occurred abroad; thus, it seems possible that the case will resurface in another court.  See Docket No. 16-cv-2063 (C.D. Cal.).

    Graffiti Art and Copyright

    Graffiti art, like tattoo art, uses an unconventional “canvas.”  But that doesn’t mean these art forms don’t enjoy copyright protection.  The primary statutory requirements for copyright protection are that the work must be sufficiently original, and that it must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression.  Although graffiti might someday be painted over, it generally is sufficiently permanent and stable—“fixed,” in statutory terms—to be copyrightable.  And while it’s possible to envision graffiti that is not “original” enough to be copyrightable (perhaps a generic statement like “Kilroy was here” in a plain, unremarkable style of writing), the threshold for originality in copyright law generally is relatively low and many works of graffiti should qualify.  And while it’s arguable that graffiti that is created illegally should not enjoy copyright protection, that position has not gained much support in case law or scholarship; moreover, the distinction between legal street art and illegal graffiti may be unhelpful to some defendants, given that it’s not unheard of for graffiti artists to do their work with the permission of—or even at the behest of—those who own the property on which the graffiti appears.

    A defendant might also be able to avoid copyright liability for copying graffiti by invoking a fair use defense.  For example, a few years ago, the rock band Green Day prevailed on a fair use defense in a lawsuit over their use of a graffiti artwork in a backdrop for their live concert performances.  But important to the court’s ruling in that case was evidence that the artwork in question had never appeared on merchandise or promotional materials advertising the band or its concerts or music; a fair use defense is generally less likely to succeed where the would-be infringer used another’s work in a patently commercial way, as McDonald’s apparently did here.  Moreover, courts are sometimes reluctant to rule on fair use issues early in a case, preferring to wait until parties have engaged in discovery, meaning that even a defendant with a reasonable fair use defense may nevertheless incur significant litigation costs.

    Recent years have brought an increase in litigation by graffiti artists and tattoo artists seeking to defend their work from copyright infringement by larger consumer brands.  For example, we have written before about graffiti artist Rime’s lawsuit against fashion house Moschino, which incorporated some of Rime’s artwork into high-end couture garments; that case settled this past summer, following a ruling in which a federal court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss Rime’s claims (which included copyright, trademark, and unfair business practice claims).  See Docket No. 15-cv-5900 (C.D. Cal.).  Other cases involving major corporate defendants like Coach and American Eagle have also ended in confidential settlements.  See Docket No. 14-cv-6668 (S.D.N.Y.) and Docket No. 14-cv-5618 (S.D.N.Y.).

    Such cases suggest that many defendants—often, large consumer brands—either do not understand that graffiti art qualifies for copyright protection (so they assume they cannot be legally liable for infringement), or they are gambling that, as a practical matter, street artists lack the wherewithal or resources to protect their rights (so they assume they can infringe with little risk of being held responsible).  But as these cases continue to arise, work their way through the courts, and garner public attention, those interested in “borrowing” graffiti art images—particularly if the images are to be used in commercial ventures—would be well-advised to reassess those flawed assumptions, or at the very least consult legal counsel for an expert opinion before they do so.