Mr. Brainwash Loses Another Lawsuit

Mr. Brainwash has just finished another court battle regarding his use of stenciled images from photographs in his street art and gallery work--and Mr. Brainwash lost again.

The first one centered around Brainwash's use of an iconic Run DMC photo. This latest case is based around MBW's being sued for using a classic photo of Sid Vicious taken by Dennis Morris.  MBW is accused of using it without permission.

A federal judge ruled that while MBW's artwork does add some "new elements" to the original pieces, however, the new elements did not change it enough.   The judge said that "the overall effect is not transformative".

This type of evaluation can be a double-edged sword, as demonstrated by the recent case of LA street artist Euthanasia against Green Day.  Green Day had used a gently modified version of one of Euth's images as a back drop for their North American Concert tour years ago, without ever getting permission from Euth.  Euth lost his case when a federal judge tossed it out after Euth testified that putting a red cross on the image (what Green Day did), "maliciously devalues the original intent".  But that, the judge said, made it transformative, so Euth lost the case.

The judge also rejected Brainwash's argument that 'appropriation art per se' should be protected by fair use.  The terms of the settlement and damages from this case have not yet been determined.

This case might have a big impact on the world of street art, since so many artists use iconic photos celebrity photos in their art work.  It seems like when it comes to an original image, you can't use it unless you ruin it?  Then its okay?

What do M&F's think?  How will this decision effect the street art world?

Stolen Imagery

A story has been developing in Los Angeles where a store called HD Buttercup has enlarged a photo print of a street piece from Thank You X, and is now selling this print in the store for $3,000 (pictured above).

Thank You X says that he never gave the store permission to use the image, or sell it.  He is not pleased and X's lawyer has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the store to stop selling it.

There is not doubt that the image HD Buttercup is selling is the same shot as one that X stenciled on a dumpster (see pic below).  However, this situation is further complicated by the fact that the image at hand is a stencil picture of Andy Warhol.  It is based on an iconic photograph of Andy Warhol (not sure who took the original?).  Thank You X says that he drew a hand painted piece based upon the original photograph image and that his image is trademarked, but X does not have intellectual rights to the original image in the first place.

This situation has a lot of similarities to the case last year when Mr. Brainwash got sued by Glen E. Friedman when MBW used Friedman's iconic Run DMC photograph in an art piece without permission.  MBW lost the lawsuit because the judge ruled that Brainwash did not change the image enough.

So what's the moral of the story?  Its fucked up when any store appropriates imagery from any artist without permission and/or compensation.  As his lawyer advises him, if X were to sue the store, he would probably win.  However, if the original photographer chose to sue X, they might also probably win.  Perhaps, the moral of the story might be that if an artist want's to protect the intellectual property rights of their art, the way to do that is to create original art.  Pop imagery is a favorite to employ among street artists.  Because even though that image might be iconic,  that recognition also comes loaded with previous baggage.

Mr. Brainwash Gets Sued

Mr. Brainwash is being sued by Glen E. Friedman for using a picture of Run DMC without permission.

There is a clear difference between this case, and the Shepard Fairey/Associated Press Obama battle, and the Mr. Brainwash lawsuit should have a clear impact of the on street art everywhere.

Click below to read more