Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
The Eastern District of Michigan is host to the latest in a series of lawsuits brought all across the country involving an intellectual property dispute between a high-profile brand owner and street artists whose work is featured without compensation in an advertisement campaign by that brand owner. See, e.g., Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Bombardier, Docket No. 2:19-cv-10951 (E.D. Mich. Mar 29, 2019); Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Soto et al, Docket No. 2:19-cv-10949 (E.D. Mich. Mar 29, 2019); Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Lewis, Docket No. 2:19-cv-10948 (E.D. Mich. Mar 29, 2019). On March 29, 2019, Mercedes Benz (Mercedes) brought three declaratory judgment actions against the artists Daniel Bombardier, Maxx Gramajo, James “Dabls” Lewis, and Jeff Soto. In each action, Mercedes is seeking a declaration of non-infringement, fair use, exemption under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for its use of the artists' work. In turn, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a further response on May 15, 2019.
All of the claims arose from a Mercedes Instagram advertising campaign for the G-500 SUV, a luxury car. In the advertisement campaign, the SUV was juxtaposed against the murals, all of which were installed at Detroit's Eastern Market section as part of the “Murals in the Market” program. As part of that program, artists are commissioned to install works of art to enliven a public space in downtown Detroit. The murals also serve as a centerpiece for a festival that draws visitors who wish to enjoy music, tours, food, and of course, the artwork. After the ad campaign was released, the artists expressed their displeasure that a $200,000 luxury SUV was being advertised in connection with their art and that they were not compensated for the use. In response to that criticism, Mercedes argued it had obtained appropriate shoot permits from the City of Detroit to create the ad spots. It further argued that the artwork was incidentally included in the campaign, and that upon notice by the artists, it promptly removed the works as a courtesy. Mercedes further defended its actions by claiming that its use of the artwork in its campaign was transformational. The murals were partly blurred to emphasize the speed of the car, and the shots that included the artwork were focused on the car as opposed to the artwork. Furthermore, the murals were not displayed in their entirety within the advertisements. After initial discussions between the artists and Mercedes did not resolve the dispute, Mercedes initiated these cases seeking a ruling that their actions were transformational and non-infringing.
The claims in these declaratory judgment actions are not novel, but rather, the latest in the rising tide of legal disputes between artists whose work appears in public places, and brand owners that incorporate this artwork into advertisement campaigns without obtaining the consent or providing compensation to the artist. The bulk of these types of lawsuits have settled, leaving many open questions about the extent of copyright protection for artwork installed in public places, and the scope of protection for public artwork, featured at times tangentially, in connection with promotions.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.