Geez C-Dubs, lighten up!

[Cycsk]

Who knew that @ChrisMWilliams was a public artist with undies in a bundle!

From today's Des Moines Register:

Chris Williams was shocked when he learned that his mural was part of a Super Bowl commercial earlier this year. The 35-year- old Des Moines artist painted the colorful collection on squares and rectangles at Sixth and College Avenues in 2018. It was part of a community project in the Riverbend neighborhood.
Williams said no one sought permission to use the mural, and Hy-Vee, which ran the ad, did not give him credit or compensation. He is now suing Hy-Vee for copyright infringement. “I felt very confused about seeing my art being used by Hy-Vee on a presumably multi-million dollartelevision commercial." “People who recognized his mural in the campaign would have concluded that Williams ‘sold out,’ diminishing the value of his work and reputation,” the lawsuit says.

 

[twojman]

that would be for the local advertising that is allowed and would not have cost millions of dollars.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Is that doosh art or Bro art?

 

[Gonzo]

that would be for the local advertising that is allowed and would not have cost millions of dollars.

Yeah, I don't blame him one bit, but hopefully he realizes that 100 million people watching the Super Bowl around the world didn't see that spot.

 

[CyVoodoo]

Who knew that @ChrisMWilliams was a public artist with undies in a bundle!

From today's Des Moines Register:

Chris Williams was shocked when he learned that his mural was part of a Super Bowl commercial earlier this year. The 35-year- old Des Moines artist painted the colorful collection on squares and rectangles at Sixth and College Avenues in 2018. It was part of a community project in the Riverbend neighborhood.
Williams said no one sought permission to use the mural, and Hy-Vee, which ran the ad, did not give him credit or compensation. He is now suing Hy-Vee for copyright infringement. “I felt very confused about seeing my art being used by Hy-Vee on a presumably multi-million dollartelevision commercial." “People who recognized his mural in the campaign would have concluded that Williams ‘sold out,’ diminishing the value of his work and reputation,” the lawsuit says.

View attachment 65914 View attachment 65915

That looks like a public sidewalk to me. I'm not sure that hiring a lawyer to sue a big company is somehow not selling out. I can understand he's a little mad but probably should just enjoy the fact that more people got to see the work.

 

[Stewo]

Wait a second. He thought that Hy-Vee paid millions of dollars to run an ad during the Superbowl? Is someone not going to reach out to the guy and let him know that it was a local ad seen by literally thousands?

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

So I'm guessing Hy-Vee wouldn't mind if he repainted the art using their logo in a not so pleasing way?

 

[ISUAlum2002]

Yeah, this guy does look like the kind of guy who would have just now found out that his silly art was in a Super Bowl ad......6+ months ago.

News flash, your parents and brothers who recognized your "art" in the commercial aren't going to think you sold out.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

Wait a second. He thought that Hy-Vee paid millions of dollars to run an ad during the Superbowl? Is someone not going to reach out to the guy and let him know that it was a local ad seen by literally thousands?

This too.....Hy-Vee didn't pay millions to run the ad, it would have just been a local spot.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

My 12 year old doodled something similar on her napkin during dinner this past weekend.

I might contact Chris and see if I can get a class action suit going.

 

[Cyientist]

How did they use it? If it was just an attempt to show a vibrant community and they didn't act like they were painting it, I don't see the big deal. Public art is public art. Unless HyVee acted like they commissioned it or painted it themselves. I'm picturing someone walking down a sidewalk and it was in the background.

I'm guessing he'll need to take on a bunch of side-hustle photographers taking senior pictures next...

 

[NWICY]

Wait a second. He thought that Hy-Vee paid millions of dollars to run an ad during the Superbowl? Is someone not going to reach out to the guy and let him know that it was a local ad seen by literally thousands?

Lawyer doesn't care he just hopes Hy-Vee throws them a 100,000 go away check. Hy-Vee should let it go to court just to beat them. Isn't public art available to all? Also how was it used in the ad? @WooBadger18, @CloneLawman , we need a ruling.

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Lawyer doesn't care he just hopes Hy-Vee throws them a 100,000 go away check. Hy-Vee should let it go to court just to beat them. Isn't public art available to all? Also how was it used in the ad? @WooBadger18, @CloneLawman , we need a ruling.

My armchair lawyer-ing says that the artist owns the copyright but if he was commissioned by the building/town then the building/town "owns" that particular art but can't replicate it at all unless it has explicit permission from the copyright owner.

Using the art in the ad is a violation of copyright law since an ad doesn't fall under the Fair Use law (act?) and a video is a copy/derivative work.

Hy-Vee could argue that the ad was merely seen in the background in a video of Des Moines and therefore not the focus of the ad. This is where it would get tricky and I haven't seen the ad so no idea if the art piece was a focal point or not.

So to conclude, he has a case but not for millions. It'll probably settle for a low-mid 5 figure sum out of court.

I could also be talking out of my ass and totally wrong though

 

[Cyched]

Midlife Crisis CW needs to cut his hair.

 

[Remo Gaggi]

My armchair lawyer-ing says that the artist owns the copyright but if he was commissioned by the building/town then the building/town "owns" that particular art but can't replicate it at all unless it has explicit permission from the copyright owner.

Using the art in the ad is a violation of copyright law since an ad doesn't fall under the Fair Use law (act?) and a video is a copy/derivative work.

Hy-Vee could argue that the ad was merely seen in the background in a video of Des Moines and therefore not the focus of the ad. This is where it would get tricky and I haven't seen the ad so no idea if the art piece was a focal point or not.

So to conclude, he has a case but not for millions. It'll probably settle for a low-mid 5 figure sum out of court.

I could also be talking out of my ass and totally wrong though

I agree, you are spot on. But maybe HyVee can toss him a few boxes of cookies or a breakfast pizza as a parting gift. Nice try.

 

[SCyclone]

Midlife Crisis CW needs to cut his hair.

Yep, that starving artist look just ain't gettin' it.

 

[dosry5]

Do we know if he’s a hok fan or not? Cause that makes a difference for me in how I feel about this.

 

[Urbandale2013]

My armchair lawyer-ing says that the artist owns the copyright but if he was commissioned by the building/town then the building/town "owns" that particular art but can't replicate it at all unless it has explicit permission from the copyright owner.

Using the art in the ad is a violation of copyright law since an ad doesn't fall under the Fair Use law (act?) and a video is a copy/derivative work.

Hy-Vee could argue that the ad was merely seen in the background in a video of Des Moines and therefore not the focus of the ad. This is where it would get tricky and I haven't seen the ad so no idea if the art piece was a focal point or not.

So to conclude, he has a case but not for millions. It'll probably settle for a low-mid 5 figure sum out of court.

I could also be talking out of my ass and totally wrong though

I’m guessing it is a background in an urban setting type situation therefore I don’t think it would be an issue and he has no case.

 

[DSMCy]

Here's the commercial.
Don't blink at the 14 second mark if you want to see this giant infringement of copyright.



Also linked in the DM Rag article
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...ght-infringement-hyvee-commercial/2008639001/

According to this he's seeking $25K, so I guess not some huge payday.

The article also has some commentary on "public use".

The question of who can use public art and for what purposes has become increasingly prevalent as more murals and artwork are used in digital media and social media posts, said Charlie Damschen, attorney and partner at Hamilton IP Law in Iowa.

Even if art is created and displayed in a public place, the artist still owns the copyright to the piece, Damschen said.

 

[ISUTex]

Is the guy standing if front of his art? It's a bunch of squares and rectangles with shapes in them. Jesus, I should be an artist.