H&M is Awesome
From: Tori LaConsay
Subject: Copyright infringement by H&M
To: Helen@regretsy.com
The East Atlanta Village is one of the most loving, tight-knit neighborhoods I’ve ever known. The residents are like family.
On December 14, 2008, I painted a love letter to my neighborhood. The sign was located on the main thoroughfare on Flat Shoals Avenue.
On one side of the sign, I painted, “You Look Nice Today” followed by a little heart. This was on the side of the sign that I thought people would see on their way to work. On the other side of the sign (the side I thought people would see the most on their return back to the neighborhood) I painted, “I’m So Happy You’re Here” with another little heart. It was a small gesture that I genuinely hoped would make my neighbors feel good.
A few days ago, friends started sending me links to the H&M UK website. Apparently, H&M were so impressed by my work, that they were using it on pillowcases and doormats, with no credit or compensation.
An email to H&M received the following response:
“We employ an independent team of over 100 designers. We can assure you that this design has not been influenced by your work and that no copyright has been infringed.”
Really?
Here’s a copy of a complaint a friend sent via H&M’s customer service portal. Please note their reply.
Some friends have been posting on H&M’s Facebook page, which is being scrubbed clean of any mention of this incident as quickly as possible.
Except for this statement:
I think it is pretty obvious what H&M have done. I hoped you wouldn’t mind sharing this with your readers.
Thank you,
Tori LaConsay
- H&M on Facebook
- H&M on Twitter
- H&M Customer Service
HEY H&M
- Thanks to Maya on Facebook for the INSPIRATION
UPDATE: From H&M’s Facebook page
January 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm
H&M wipes their feet and their ass on your loving sentiment.
You look robbed today.
January 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I was in there a couple of weeks ago and they were selling a Ramones sweatshirt. In my get I wondered if they were paying royalties to the one surviving Ramone and the estates of the three deceased ones. I’m guessing NOT.
January 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Errr *gut, in my GUT. Sorry.
January 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
i saw that in store, too. it was a licensed Ramones shirt–saw the tag on it.
January 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm
If the tag says RAMONES 1-2-3-4, you’re good.
January 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Marky Ramone has whored that licence out like nobody else, except maybe Hello Kitty. I saw a kid in a vinyl record shop show his friend a Ramones album and tell him “Look they’re named after your shirt” and then he wouldn’t believe that they had been a band before a clothing brand.
January 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I doubt Marky even comes close to the king of rock-n-roll merchandising, Gene Simmons.
January 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm
EAV is a pretty rockin’ neighborhood, aside from the hipster and dubstep infestations.
January 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
EAV is the BEST neighborhood.
January 24, 2012 at 4:27 pm
It is where I would like to be if I had my choice. I am in Kennnesaw currently.
January 24, 2012 at 6:38 pm
I’m fighting going to karaoke at Mary’s…
January 24, 2012 at 9:39 pm
It’s okay, Tori.
Imitation is the sincerest form of Fuckery.
January 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Oh, well, at least they apologies. (sic)
January 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm
The “response” goes beyond “apologies” (sic)
You’ve got your “have copied, which has never been our…”, and your “led someone to believe that we intentionally should have copied…”
So not only are the folks at H&M liars and thieves, they are also illiterate.
They’ve managed the dirtbag hat trick!
January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm
To be fair, the company is Swedish; it may not be a native English speaker replying. The sentiment is still piss-poor in any language though.
January 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Still their problem. Hire native English speakers to respond to complaints written in English. They are a multi-national company.
January 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 1:41 pm
In the same font, with the same line arrangement, with the same tiny elongated red heart?
January 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm
yeah I thought at first that it wasn’t a unique enough statement…but seeing them right next to each other? WOW pretty striking.
January 25, 2012 at 10:03 am
It’s not really a font! If you look at the two “O”s in “Look” they are different. I hope she takes them to court
January 24, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Yeah, I can see crazy’s point — as just a sentence — but with the whole graphic character treatment and heart and everything, it’s a different story.
January 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Hey, H&M changed the capital ‘I’ to a lower-case ‘i’. That’s some artistic interpretation, huh?
January 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I like that the period migrated to top the “i”.
January 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Probably what happened was someone took a pic and put it on tumblr. Don’t need to live in ATL to have a designer see it if it’s out in internetland.
Even if it wouldn’t hold up in court, it’s still a really dick move- they copied the style of the letters pretty damn closely… I guess if you move the period above the “i” in “nice”…Nope, still BS. I sure as hell wouldn’t put something in my portfolio that is so blatantly
ripped offinspired by something.January 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm
crazyasfolk, It’s not that the sentiment is so original, it’s the manner in which the sentiment is expressed. That’s the part you can copyright.
For example, you can’t copyright the word “love,” but try putting this on a T-shirt and making that argument:
January 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm
right.
January 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Please elaborate.
January 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Soooo….we shouldn’t have done this then:
Seriously though, this is acceptable under copyright law. It is intentionally invoking the above LOVE design as en hommage, however it is a drastically different design and, so, not infringement
January 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm
And don’t forget to buy your t-shirt!
http://www.zazzle.com/cf4l_love_tshirt-235725893138819974
I know…shameless
January 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm
@G Val is Quiet Serious
done.
can’t wait!
January 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm
@BGS
Cool!
Best thing is that it’s Regretsy’s shop and goes to charity!
Post picks when you get it!
January 24, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Actually, when Neiman-Marcus asked Robert Indiana if they could license his design for the cover of a Christmas catalog (reading “NOEL”), he cried because the incident was so rare.
January 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I have seen this sign somewhere but I can’t remember where online. It isn’t the phrase or the heart it’s the font… that is what seals the deal.
Now the thing is are we going to find something similar earlier to what the artist did online like the michigan necklace
January 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm
PS she painted the sign in 2008-that is why I have seen it before the images have been around for a while
January 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Who the hell do they think they are? Urban Outfitters?
January 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Does h&m accept paypuke? Do you think if a bunch of incognito FJLs complain to paypuke that the h&m shit is counterfeit, paypuke would start letting/requiring h&m customer’s to destroy the merchandise then refunding them, doubling fucking h&m. If we could pull off that fuckery, pitting one giant evil fuck against another, it would become internet legend. Anybody in?
January 24, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Very Yojimbo.
January 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Ha! H&M knew exactly what they were doing. They’re notorious for this!
And they might want to hire someone who has a better command of the English language to do their social network marketing. That statement was just barely comprehensible.
January 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
As for H&M being notorious for this, here is a piece from Fashionista.com:
“H&M Spring 2012 collection has lots of punchy colors, structured silhouettes, and a jacket we swear we’ve seen somewhere before…Ah, that’s right, we have! Because Carven put out the exact same jacket for spring 2011.
It’s certainly a unique, standout piece, putting some interesting twists on an otherwise classic blazer shape–which makes it all the more frustrating that this replica exists. Sure, H&M punched up the color, subbing sunny yellow in for Carven’s chic sherbet. But, still: same neckline, same lapels, same cross-over closure, same flap pockets…same jacket.
We’re guessing we won’t be seeing a Carven x H&M collab any time soon.”
Sense a “pattern” here?
January 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Large companies often rip off couture into ready to wear, it’s not seen so much as stealing as people who spend money on high end aren’t going to swing by Sears to check out the knock off. Its more that this woman doesn’t have her own income based on the design and they are profiting.
January 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Oh, I agree. When the Alphabet City neighborhood in Manhattan was just beginning to gentrify/hispterfy in the mid80s, there was a joke that the fashions (and music and other cultural bits and pieces) that were seen about on Avenue C would be K mart in six months.
And you are correct that this is worse than aping couture designs as the folks wearing the knockoffs will usually try to buy at least one or two “original” durable/reusable couture branded items, like bags, sunglasses, etc. So “stealing” couture is somewhat similar to people watching big clips of something for the first time on YouTube and then eventually buying the DVD set.
H&M stealing from an artist who didn’t get paid in the first place, as you state, is much worse as it is not only really skeevy, the theft carries with it no possibility of any return for the artist (unless you count becoming a Regretsy cause celebre’ as something).
January 25, 2012 at 9:54 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
That’s actually not technically true–clothing designs are copyrighted, like any other creative work, but what the court accepts as a “new” design in this case requires very little modification. However, that is why you are legally not allowed to mass-produce clothing from a commercial pattern–you haven’t been given the copyright license to use the design
commercially.
January 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm
I actually kinda feel sorry for H&M, knowing the literal and virtual shitstorm they are about to catch.
January 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I was just thinking that lol
January 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I’m down for going and shitting in their stores.
January 24, 2012 at 5:47 pm
And so the shitstorm begins…
http://www.styleite.com/media/hm-you-look-nice-today/
January 25, 2012 at 4:55 am
I hope someone will get the naughty stick (or fired) for being too lazy to come up with their own design, and blatantly stealing someone else’s.
Sux to be them!
H & M suck it up! Apologise and make it right! FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Well, for Tori at least
January 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm
but you guuuys, they “apologies”!
… why does their PR team write in Engrish?
January 24, 2012 at 1:41 pm
You guys, it’s totally different. H&M used a lower-case “i”.
[/sarcasm]
January 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
nope, they just moved the period above the i.
January 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Not even our fuzzy messages are safe anymore!
You look shaved today. <3
January 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for noticing!
3= <–Smiley with knockers and recently-shaven legs.
January 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Aaaaaand a penis.
January 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm
NTTAWWT
January 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I didn’t shave that.
January 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm
I don’t claim to have been an H&M customer before, but they can certainly fuck right off now.
January 24, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Why don’t we let the kids in the call center handle this one?
January 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Like, omg, this bitch totally thinks we ripped her design. I really care if she shops here again (sticking finger down throat in exaggerated gag).
January 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
HK – The link to H&M’s FB page needs fixing.
January 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I fixed it. Thanks
January 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
I hope this sparks a major boycott that H&M actually notices and then the rest of Sweden notices because, seriously, the customer service in this country is super shitty.
January 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
wow, H&M. What next?? Stealing candy from babies? Bastards.
January 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I agree the design is clearly copied and they are lying by trying to pretend it is not. Although I don’t think this rises to the level of copying a meticulously drawn sketch or full-color drawing or painting or something. I mean, she hand-write the message and drew a heart. Can anyone here honestly say they could not have “designed” this? I think I could have done it.
January 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
You *could* have done it. I could have done it! Also, H&M could have done it. But none of us did. Tori did it – none of us had that idea, no matter how simple, so H&M have no right to rip it off.
January 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I left my husband a note that looked almost identical …
January 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Yes, that must have been it.
January 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Well stated, Mandi. In my original email to Regretsy, I said, “It may not be the prettiest sign ever painted, hell – some people may have even called it an eyesore, but the message is completely sincere. Despite my crude, crooked lettering (it was cold out when I painted it), it is my crude, crooked lettering, dammit. And true to form, H&M UK decided to take it and profit from it without even the slightest attempt to request permission. Sheesh.”
January 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I feel so sorry for you, Tori – to see your lovely sentiment being whored out by H&M on crappy housewares for $$$$ must be awful for you
I hope H&M puts this right for you, I really really do.
January 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Thanks. An apology would have sufficed, for sure. I’m pretty easy to please. But lies are rude. And so are sweatshops.
January 25, 2012 at 11:35 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Yeah, but you didn’t. And they didn’t either.
January 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Anybody could do what Andy Warhol did. Anybody could do what Jackson Pollock did. Certainly anybody could have emulated Keith Haring.
The point is not how easy it is to make the design; the issue is who did it first.
January 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Where I’m leery of this is… it was a sign painted anonymously. Yes, perhaps H&M should have at least made the font significantly different since, as was pointed out, it’s not exactly an original or unique sentiment, but still. Does copyright law honestly cover something somebody painted on a sign in their neighbourhood? It seems to be reaching. I had more sympathy for the necklace person (before it was found to be mostly a case of cryabeetus on a design she couldn’t prove was originally hers in the first place). I’ll probably get downvoted, but it does seem to me to be something of a stretch to cry foul over this.
January 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Just because something’s done anonymously does that mean that someone else has the right to claim credit for it? Even if it’s a simple design or a silly quote, anonymity doesn’t mean “credit to whoever jumps on it first!”
January 25, 2012 at 9:55 am
Yes, copyright absolutely covers something someone painted on a sign in their neighborhood. It’s a work of art and H&M’s use of it, if it can be proved to have been copied or inspired by the original, is infringing under copyright law. This is despite anything H&M may have told you thus far. Lawyer up.
January 25, 2012 at 9:56 am
Copyright applies the instant that the piece of art is created. There does not need to be a name on it or a (c) symbol or anything at all for it to be copyrighted to the creator. Nor does it have to be registered.
January 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm
It is not necessary to know who owns the copyright to infringe on it. This leads to so called “orphan” works–art that cannot be used, because no one knows to whom to direct requests for permission. The correct legal action in regards to such an anonymous work is to NOT use it.
January 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm
It is indeed.
January 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I agree that they stole your design (moving the period to the top of the i fools no one), but I’m still confused about how they could have asked for permission.
Looking at the pictures, I would have assumed it’s graffiti. A sweet sentiment, but still graffiti. And if that were the case, I wouldn’t be hunting down ownership.
January 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Nevermind, I actually read the whole thread. Confusion averted.
January 24, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I can’t find anything in the initial post that says it was well-known she designed it. It says her friends tipped her off about H&M, but just because your friends know you made something, doesn’t mean the world does. I would have just taken it as (cute) anonymous graffiti – how is anyone supposed to do anything about copyrights? And is what is essentially a form of graffiti covered by copyright?
January 25, 2012 at 9:57 am
Graffiti is covered by copyright. Now that they know you’re the creator, they know they’re liable for copyright infringement. Of course, you haven’t registered your copyright, but you should. Learn when statutory damages are available to you and when, in contrast, you’d have to rely on actual damages. If you can get the former through immediate registration and then a lawsuit, consider that a powerful threat to them and ask for compensation.
January 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
People need to have a basic understanding of international copyright law: If you create it, it’s your copyright. Period, End of sentence. Papers don’t have to be filed and the law protects you globally. H&M thought they were pulling a fast one and that no one would notice.
January 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm
There is no international copyright laws they are country specific. Its why pirate bay operates just fine in sweden
January 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm
These items are being sold in the US, which is most assuredly a violation of copyright laws /here/
January 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm
On the contrary, international copyright law is governed by treaty. Sweden, as part of the EU, is party to the WCT treaty that governs modern works such as these. It’s a copyright violation here, there, and everywhere else where WCT has been signed.
January 24, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Original works are automatically protected by copyright. There’s no “copyrighting” that needs to be done.
Unfortunately, they haven’t reproduced her sign; they’ve made a different image that looks a lot like hers. Ideas aren’t protected by copyright.
They (or the designer who sold them this) are jerks, but this is not something that will hold up in court, especially not across international borders.
January 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Disagree, that would be up to a jury to decide whether it was similar enough.
January 25, 2012 at 9:58 am
True, but do you think it’s substantially similar enough? Seems like a no-brainer, to me. I’d love to see a judge or jury find to the contrary.
January 24, 2012 at 2:37 pm
That doesn’t matter. It’s like saying “this isn’t YOUR bike, it doesn’t even have your name on it.”
January 24, 2012 at 5:38 pm
As said before, there is no “process” to copywriting something. It is automatically “done” when you create something. A dozen people can take a picture of the same scene, that doesn’t give them permission to use the other peoples’ images, because the rights of each picture belongs to the person who took it, for all the unique idiosyncracies of each picture belong to the creator.
Did H&M create an inspired piece? Yes, by making changes to the original. Did H&M create an original piece? No; it’s blatantly obvious they did not. At first they lied about even being inspired by the sign, then they admitted they were “inspired”. Regardless, even if something is only inspired, you have a duty to share who or what caused that inspiration.
Hopefully an ad agency or someone will notice all this hoopla and want to use the original photo so Tori can get a little scratch out of this whole ordeal.
January 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I don’t think the facebook link is working correctly.
January 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
There isn’t any copyright ifringement! They totally used a lower case ‘i’ and removed the period. They even changed the colour of the love heart on the pillow! -.-
January 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
God, now I’m going to have to get drunk and go not shop at H&M like I usually don’t. Ugh, this internet activism thing is so hard.
January 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Stay strong!
January 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I’ll admit I was skeptical at first (it is a pretty generic message and no one can claim a <3 to be their own) but the more I read the more I was convinced that H&M ripped off the artist.
I think karma already kicking in though. When you google "H&M Stealing" the entire first page is tips on how to steal clothing from their stores.
January 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm
At first, I thought – eh, same sentiment – then them next to each other? Holy HELL – it’s like they printed a picture of the sign onto iron-on paper and used THAT….fuckers….
January 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I’m usually a fan of H&M. This made me sad.
I think Tori should release towels and bed linen with her own design on it. I nearly bought the doormat from H&M before I read this! If Tori releases a set of stuff on her own I will most definitely buy it from her, and after I’ve posted that link on my facebook I know many others who will too.
January 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Hmm, how much you wanna bet if Tori does try to use her own design H&M hits HER up with a cease and desist!
January 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I guess the message here is that as soon as you even think of something, to copyright or trademark it right away so you can sue the pants off places like H&M or Urban Outfitters when they steal it (and they will).
January 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Apparently short phrases can only be trademarked, not copyrighted– and it’s more expensive.
David Malki! of Wondermark goes into some detail about it here (though at least Signals didn’t try to imitate his shirt’s style as closely as H&M imitated Tori’s design):
http://wondermark.com/calendars-are-sold-out/
January 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm
True. She could have copyrighted the actual design, but in that case they probably would have just changed it enough to use it. (I was being facetious in my original comment, obviously, but it’s interesting to see how these things work.)
January 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm
They did change it enough to use it. And it was “copyrighted” when she painted it.
January 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
No, they didn’t. At best it’s a derivative work, which the author of the original has the sole right to create and distribute under copyright law.
January 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm
You do not have to “do” anything to copyright an original work of art.
January 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm
There is more to the piece than just the words. It’s the whole style and layout that makes it copywritable.
January 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm
It’s not even that the design is particularly intricate or anything. It was created by someone and they just straight up stole it, and are trying to lie about it.
Pair this blatant stealing with H&M cutting up unsold clothes and throwing them in the dumpster behind one of their stores in NY (http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/h-m-and-wal-mart-destroy-and-trash-unsold-goods-562909.html), and I think we have a runner up for douchebaggiest company of the year.
January 24, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Also this is NOT my work! I found it on a google image search.
January 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I took advice from H&M and changed one eye. Now it’s totally MY image!
January 25, 2012 at 10:34 am
Oh no! So posting this image on here shot my photobucket account views to 11,000 in one day (which is slightly over my normal amount of views of about 150/day). It seems that photobucket has suspended my photos from being viewed! I hope it’s only temporary.
January 24, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Answer: A flash mob of pissed-off villagers with flaming torches and weapons!
Question: What do you sincerely wish for when some corporation has fucked over an individual?
January 24, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm
You can’t just take something and use it because you can’t figure out how to find the person who created it.
And H&M is a multimillion dollar, multinational company. They have a huge legal department and researchers. They have enough resources to find you IF THEY WANT TO.
January 25, 2012 at 10:01 am
Yes you can. If you can demonstrate that you’ve exercised reasonable diligence trying to find the author, this works in your favor. Unfortunately for H&M, they’re trying to claim that their product is not based on the original, which goes against any later suggestion that they exercised reasonable diligence.
January 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Uh, no you still can’t. In that case, the work is an “orphan” work, and you violate copyright at the risk that the actual author shows up and sues you. Congress recently considered passing a law to allow the use of oprhan works after due dilligence, but killed the measure.
January 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I said “it works in your favor,” and didn’t mean to imply “you get a free ride.” You do so at your peril–I agree I could have been much clearer on this.
January 24, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Once again, it doesn’t matter.
“What, you didn’t SIGN this baby, how am I supposed to know it’s yours?!”
Copyright doesn’t work like that.
January 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Maybe they just shouldn’t steal other people’s images and come up with their own designs.
January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm
For this answer, I went to the source: the Library of Congress, the part of the government that covers copywriting in the US. (As opposed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.) And yes, I spent about 5 years working in this field so this is very familiar territory for me.
Under the FAQ:
What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.
January 24, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Of course that only applies in the USA
January 24, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Yes, but the items are for sale in the US which makes it a violation. Further more, we have trade agreements with many of the countries these items would be sold in that allow for mutually honoring each others’ copyright laws.
January 25, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Actually I covered international as well, but the thing is they do have a US office, so I believe this should adhere to them.
January 24, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Theoretically speaking, if I were a big company, and I saw this image (either in person on on the internet), what would be the *right* way to go about finding out who made it and getting permission to use it? How do you figure out how much to offer the artist? (I suppose I’d have a whole staff to do this if I were H&M… so let’s say I was a tiny company.) Serious replies requested!
January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm
One suggestion would be to tape a small business card to the sign, with a message asking the creator to contact you. Then, until they do, you don’t rip off their work. Or, if they don’t, you don’t rip off their work.
If you are a developer or designer for the company in question, you could photograph the image and create fliers with your contact information, then post them in the area (at a local cafe, for instance, or hand them to people parked nearby), to see if anyone might have information about the person who created the sign and how you could be contacted. Word-of-mouth would doubtless spread back to the creator, who could then contact you.
Again, in the meantime, you don’t rip off their work.
January 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm
That’s what your enormous research and development deparment is for, as well as your legal staff.
January 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
If I was an H&M designer, I’d think, how about simply not using it at all, and maybe, I dunno, using my brain to think up something else entirely different?
After all, that’s what I get paid for! 
January 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Exactly.
January 24, 2012 at 6:45 pm
It took me 12 seconds to rip off her design with more couth, class, and competence than H&M:
January 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm
If you saw the image online, trace it back to the source by emailing the photographer. You can usually find contact info. Ask around. If a piece of art is in front of a building, chances are someone knows something about it. Most art is signed as well. Try Google.
January 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I feel so… vicious. I’ve easily posted 7 or 8 different things on their Facebook posts and Wall now.
I LOVE IT
And to those of you who disagree that Tori deserves credit, that’s your opinion and that’s fine. I just don’t understand your point of view. The idea may be common, but the actual execution is too similar to be coincidence. And even if they were “inspired” by Tori’s sign, their reproductions are too similar. They basically took her work and sold it without her permission or initially giving her credit.
If they couldn’t find her to do so, then they should not have used this work.
This is very similar to Helen’s post about using a Photoshop filter on copyrighted images and then thinking you own them. H&M has done the same thing. They slightly altered the original, nothing more, and profited from it. That’s stealing, bros.
January 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm
…this post was supposed to be a comment by itself, not a reply. Whatever. Perkele, and such.
January 25, 2012 at 4:05 am
Personally, if I were a small company, I would try to enter the market with an original design, thereby avoiding the issue. You question seems to start from the “position” that stealing someone’s design is really the only option, is this what public education has come to?
January 25, 2012 at 10:02 am
The company doesn’t have to in this case: she came to them. They now know who the author is.
January 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I feel for the artist and H&M should clearly try harder to be more original, but honestly I’m not seeing any contact info on there, how did the artist expect anyone to compensate them even if they wanted to? In H&M’s eyes this is graffiti on the street that anyone could have done…which I suppose the corporate types view as free for the taking. I’m not condoning that at all btw, just pointing out I’m sure no one thought they were stealing.
It’s unfair and now that the author is known H&M should work something out, but I don’t think this is on the same level as that chick selling the milk and cookies t shirt she didn’t make.
January 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I was thinking the exact same thing. If H&M employs that many designers, it’s possible one of their freelancers that frequents EAV (and I live in Atlanta- that place is absolutely crawling with artists and hipsters galore) saw it and since it’s practically graffiti, they took a picture and thought it would make a cool t-shirt.
There’s a lot of ‘street art’ in this part of ATL and this happens fairly frequently- someone takes a photo of someone’s street art and uses it in their own artwork and then the [often] anonymous street artist raises hell.
I agree that it would have been nice for H&M to credit the artist after they found out it was her, but honestly, that would open up a wormhole of potential legal activity that most companies would want to avoid.
January 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm
…and may I tentatively suggest that if you’re a street artist and you want to prevent this, find some way of tagging your work with a consistent, recognizable icon to prove it’s you without getting arrested?
January 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm
This is not graffiti. It is lacking the trespassory element – i.e., it looks like she painted it on an empty sign, not on someone else’s property
January 25, 2012 at 10:48 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I think it would be a different story if she’d contacted H&M and they replied with “Sorry, we didn’t know how to contact you” and tried to work something out. But the fact that they’re replying to her basically with “TS” makes it something else.
January 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
This. The original action might be explicable. The response is hillbilly bajingo wash.
January 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I think the second reply stuns me even more, since that’s essentially a customer complaint. Customers complain about much pettier things all the time, and there are ways to avoid admitting culpability while still acknowledging their complaint. If I email them and say I’m never going back into their store because an employee was rude to me, are they just going to say “We’re sorry to hear you will no longer be shopping with us”?
January 25, 2012 at 2:14 am
With menthol.
January 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm
If you take or use something that is not yours, that you did not make, and did not get permission to take or use, it is stealing.
It’s pretty simple. Just because it was easy to steal, and hard to find the creator, doesn’t get them off the hook. If a thief makes off with your wallet because you left it on the table at a coffeeshop and forgot to leave a card with your phone number in it, it’s still theft. Same thing here.
January 24, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Except that it’s copyright infringement, which is a civil suit and not a criminal matter.
January 25, 2012 at 10:04 am
No, it’s not stealing, since the original still resides where it does. Nothing was taken away, since intellectual property is a common good–in other words, multiple users can benefit from it while the original still belongs to whomever it does.
Now is it infringement? That’s at least the issue here. I say yes, based on the facts as presented above.
January 25, 2012 at 4:12 am
I totally saw the words “Coke” in script, “Disney” and “IBM” in block, and “Harley/Davidson” on a sort of shield&bar thing w/o contact info, so in my eyes anyone could do those, so if they are unhappy about my stealing them they should try harder to put contact info on everything.
January 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
somebody paint “Namaste, Bitches” on something and copyright it! STAT!
January 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Do it. Maybe H&M will be interested.
January 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
I left out a copyright, I’m totally gonna spot this on H&M, right?
January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm
H&M is going to put it on cashmere panties and then they’ll have to face the wrath of Sartoria. She will start lobbing jars of rotting…i mean FERMENTING kimchee and sauerkraut their offices like vegan Molotov cocktails.
speaking of cocktails…
January 24, 2012 at 3:41 pm
as far as I know, kimchi isn’t vegan.. my roomates has fish in it.
January 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I don’t know you, but I love you.
January 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm
You spelled it wrong… those look more like Namaste Britches!
January 25, 2012 at 9:28 am
That caught me completely off-guard, and I now have a really dirty monitor.
Why do I read regretsy while eating lunch?
January 25, 2012 at 7:47 am
Would I be allowed to use that image? I’m halfway (alright, a third) through a Regretsy alphabet chart kind of like the Fuckery Throw I made for AA last year. I have the letters all sorted out but have leftover felt for extra pictures, and I think that would look awesome.
If not, then that’s okay too
January 25, 2012 at 10:05 am
You don’t have to use a copyright symbol or notice, although it’s recommended for exactly the reasons highlighted by this situation. The notice or symbol puts potential infringers on notice and defuses any defense of “innocent infringement.”
January 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Genuine question: if the original sign was meant to be free public art for anyone to look at, and someone looked at it and got the idea to put it onto a doormat, how is it different from someone looking at a silhouette of the Eiffel Tower and thinking “hey, that would look nice on a pillowcase/laptop skin/whatever”?
I’ve never shopped at H&M nor plan to anyway, but I’m not 100% sure I necessarily think they’ve made a horrible moral error in this particular case.
January 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I know what you mean, but there’s a difference between putting up an image where everyone knows its source, and claiming something is your own design. And I disagree that putting up art in the public domain makes it stealable, or okay for someone else to take credit for.
My real problem with the situation is this quote:
““We employ an independent team of over 100 designers. We can assure you that this design has not been influenced by your work and that no copyright has been infringed.”
If they’ve done nothing wrong in using the art, why wouldn’t they just admit it, and say, ‘yes we were inspired’? I don’t know if giving her credit would automatically make her eligable for compensation.
January 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Yeah, I think legally they are afraid of being sued, so they can’t admit “fault.” Lawyers will tell you, never apologized for anything because then you will be liable.
January 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I was afraid of that.
Well, they’re still poop heads.
January 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Ask the NFL how they feel if your favorite football team inspires you to “create” a shirt and sell it for YOUR profit. Ask Disney. Disney will punch you in the face.
January 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm
And Mattel! Don’t even try to express any admiration for [Generic 11 1/2" Blonde Fashion Doll].
January 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I…Damn, I dunno.
January 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm
I find the example funny, because the night view of the Eiffel tower is owned – so you CAN’T legally sell it.
January 24, 2012 at 10:07 pm
We are talking about two different media here: architecture and art. The question you posed is more complex. This is one medium that transfers from one thing to the other pretty simply. They didn’t have to change it much.
January 25, 2012 at 6:10 am
I think it’s pretty clear that a massive corporation taking the work of an independent artist, and selling items for profit with that art is reprehensible. And try putting the LOVE logo (from Robert Indiana) on a shirt and find out if “public art” can be copyrighted.
January 25, 2012 at 10:06 am
“For anyone to look at” is very different that “for anyone to copy and sell.” There are endless cases where creators of public art sue photographers for displaying or selling photos of the public pieces.
January 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
The big difference is that the sign is under copyright, the tower isn’t. But I think you are also asking what copyright applies to a photo of a work of art.It has two copyrights potentially involved. The photograph itself has a copyright. The orginal artwork has a copyright. If the original art has passed into the public domain, like the Eiffel tower, than only the photo has a copyright–hence the photographer is free to license it for whatever merch she wants. However, a photo of a copyrighted work can’t be used commercially without permission from both copyright holders. The same applies to music and theater. If the piece is in public domain, only the performance is copyrighted. If the piece is new, both the performance and the piece are copyrighted. In this case, the original sign is still governed by copyright. Any photos of it would be subject to that copyright as well as the one for the photo itself.
January 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Isn’t H&M a Swedish company?
I bet we could rally some Finns to go kick their asses.
January 24, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Get Petja on it!!
January 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Kickstarter Fund to send April over to rally!
January 25, 2012 at 4:18 am
No one in that part of the world comes close to kicking ass like the Finns.
January 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
they knew exactly what they were doing, hence why it’s being marketed in the UK only and not the US where the artist lives. Also I think I’d be a little offended that the items were on sale.
I agree with Pamelakd, she should start her own own line in her exact style and market it. H&M will be on her ass so fast for copyright infringement, just watch. I’d rather buy a cute pillowcase from her on Etsy than H&M. My friend drags me in there all the time with her and I almost die of hipster douchebag embarrassment just being in there.
January 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Oh c’mon, they don’t care if she finds out about it. They probably saw an uncredited photo of the sign on friggin’ Pinterest and just thought “ooh, nice idea.” Since it’s not illegal for them to reproduce the idea, they have no motivation to actually locate the original artist and credit her…and they’re not worried about copyright infringement because it’s not. It’s just “being lazy and copying”.
January 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Actually, since those items are not sold here, I think that gives her leveral. International law is funny that way. Well anyway, here’s what Library of Congress says:
Is my copyright good in other countries?
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other’s citizens’ copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.
January 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm
leverage*
–grumble, grumble–Stupid proofreading– grumble.
January 25, 2012 at 10:07 am
(1) Berne Convention applies.
(2) A UK citizen was recently okayed by a US court for extradition to the US for copyright infringement that had US effects. Check that out.
January 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
How is this different from this? Block text of a common phrase and an elongated heart?
January 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm
It’s different, to me, because in your example, the art is clearly credited to the artist (it’s being sold in her etsy store, so it’s easy to understand who created the art). In the example above, it’s a message painted on a sign in a public place and credited to no one.
January 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm
It’s different because the shapes of states and countries never change. However, H&M could’ve been a little less sloppy and changed the font/placement. They clearly ripped her off, thinking it was just a piece of graffiti, and knew what they were doing by only marketing it in the UK.
I would also buy this if Tori made her own version
January 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Here is one nice lady who asked permission to use the image a couple of years ago and I have given it! Buy away! http://www.etsy.com/listing/56908044/i-am-so-happy-you-are-here
It is the back of the sign, but it is the same work. I’ll bet if you asked nicely, she’d make you a necklace with the front of the sign.
January 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm
that’s the first thing I thought of too.
January 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm
http://www.hm.com/us/
January 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 10:09 pm
She isn’t asking to be compensated. She is asking to be credited. Learn to read, fucktard
January 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“With the use of big and small brackets”? Oh, well that’s all right then.
January 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Not exactly. The idea is not copyrighted, the way in which it is expressed is. This is much too close to her lettering, placement, etc. Had they done this in a different font, it would be a dead issue.
January 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm
According to the Library of Congress, we (the US) have some sort of copyright agreement with Sweden. I’d actually look it up, but I don’t fully understand the reference their using.
Sweden · Berne (Paris) Aug. 1, 1904; Bilateral June 1, 1911;
UCC Geneva July 1, 1961; Phonograms Apr. 18, 1973; UCC
Paris July 10, 1974; WTO Jan. 1, 1995; WCT Mar. 14, 2010;
WPPT Mar. 14, 2010
January 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm
OMG! *they’re* using. Where’s the bleeping delete button when you need it????
January 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Most of the EU, I think, actually has stricter rules about copyright (at least in the fashion domain) than the US does, so the fact that they’re over there might work in her favor. I’m not sure about Sweden specifically, though.
Unfortunately in the US you don’t have to change very much for things to be considered “unique” works…the fact that they rewrote the letter in a similar style and redrew the heart, and the fact that it’s a simple, not-terribly-unique idea means they can probably dodge it. (And they did rewrite it- if you look at each individual letter, there are differences in shape and scale. They just used an extremely similar style.)
I definitely DO think they copied and that’s shitty of them, I just suspect that the law, in the US at least, would be on their side. That doesn’t mean that’s how it SHOULD be.
January 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm
WCT would be the most recent copyright treaty that is applicable listed there. For the purpose of this particular piece, it would be copyrighted everywhere that WCT applies, which is at minimum all of Europe. Stuff gets weird if it;s older, but for recent designs, it works the way you would expect.
January 25, 2012 at 10:09 am
thembone’s bottom comment is wrong. Changing simple features doesn’t make a second use “transformative,” which is required to find either non-infringement or “fair use.” The changes you’re describing only make the second work a derivative one, and therefore infringing.
January 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Great…another website that’s impossible not to get sucked into.
I’m sharing it immediately.
January 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm
http://stolenstyleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/h-under-scrutiny.html
It looks as if they are “inspired” by a whole plethora of designers – they’re considered one of the to thieves in the fashion industry.
January 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm
There’s a site called http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ that is all about designers who have had their stuff blatantly ripped off.
January 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm
SHITSTORM COMMENCE!
January 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Aaaand their facebook feed has blown up with an angry mob. Corporate companies REALLY should be more aware of their customer base in this day and age.
January 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm
The percentage of H&M customers that A: look at their facebook page and B: give a flying fuck is so small that I’m sure the losses from losing their business are less than the profits from selling that design (or any given other design that wasn’t really their idea.)
January 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Yes, but as evidenced from the PayPal thing, these things have a way of finding a member of the opposite sex and humping away until the problem gets out of control. Just like the math problem about the breeding rabbits, with the pyramid diagram. Kind of. Yes.
At any rate, it’s sometimes not about lost profits as much as it’s about putting pressure on a company, not that it always works.
January 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Sadly, I don’t think Paypal has been hurting too much as a result of that debacle…nor have they stopped having stupid ass policies. I got my account frozen the other day because someone tried to purchase something from somewhere in Europe (when that’s not where she’s from, I guess) and in addition to freezing HER account, they opened up a dispute with me as if she’d complained. And froze my money until the dispute was resolved. It’s all still nonsense and chaos.
Stores like H&M and Forever 21 (“cheap chic”) have an entire business model based around copying (usually somewhat loosely but not always) designer clothing off the runway and producing it cheaply. In the fashion industry, this is pretty much totally legal to do as long as you don’t try to sell it under a false label. I’m not surprised they feel the same way about “borrowing” ideas for motifs :-/
January 25, 2012 at 8:18 am
Yeah lucky for these companies that you cant copyright a dress or other piece of clothing or they would be out of business.
January 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm
i understand people saying ‘but how to contact?’ only H&M didn’t even try. They could have asked around in town. They could google it. They could put up the image on their site and be like ‘omg we love this who did it get in touch for marketing options!’
what they did was steal it, then when they got caught, lied. not ‘oh man, that was you? cool, have some money and credit and whatever’ but ‘oh well fuck off.’
so yeah, fuck H&M
January 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Hell, if they DID try and couldn’t get a hold of her then they shouldn’t have used it anyway. I mean, I could ask my neighbor if I can “borrow” his flatscreen tv, but if he’s not home then I wouldn’t take that to mean that I’m free to jack his shit because he wasn’t there to say, “No!”
Just to be clear, I agree with you. They should have tried. But in addition to what you’re saying, it shouldn’t be allowed until you have the artist’s consent.
January 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Exactly. You need permission to use someone’s work. The burden is on the person who wants to use it or sell it to get that permission, not on the creator to give it or make it easy to find them.
January 25, 2012 at 10:09 am
Oh, and p.s., they now know.
January 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I sent them an email…
“I am sure you are aware of the controversy surrounding your new line of doormats, pillow cases and towel. I just wanted to let you know that I am too.”
January 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm
interestingly enough, H&M have a designers award coming up – wonder what their advice is? Plagiarism is alive & kickin’ at H&M?
http://about.hm.com/content/hm/NewsroomSection/en/NewsRoom/NewsroomDetails/hm_design_award.html
January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Can somebody tell me how this is different than Urban Outfitters “stealing” an Etsy seller’s heart-punched-into-metal-state-shaped-charm which was in fact inspired by somebody else who stole it from somebody’s aunt who borrowed the design from Jim down the street twenty years ago? I understand the frustration here, but I can’t honestly say that “You look nice today” with a heart next to it in a handwritten blocky font is really stealing. If she had written some kind of original poetry flanked by original designs and it showed up on a doormat, then I get it. But as it is…
January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Look at the word “look” on both pieces. It’s WAY too similar to be coincidence.
January 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Maybe that’s because you didn’t paint it on a sign 3 years ago.
January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 25, 2012 at 8:23 am
It isn’t about the words. That would be the case of poetry. It is about graphic design. The exact same font. The exact same heart. It is the same design.
After all, apple’s logo is just an apple with a bite taken out of it. If you took a bite out of an ordinary apple and then took a photo of it, you would not be infringing on their copyright. But if you did a graphic representation shaped and colored exactly like theirs… beware.
If H&M’s “creative” team had changed the font or anything else associated with it, this discussion wouldn’t be happening. But they didn’t, so it is.
January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
If it were just the phrase and a heart in no particular configuration, sure.
But this is clearly identical spacing, kerning, font, etc. It is almost a photograph. That’s not “idea” that’s sampling.
If you sample someone’s song, you pay them. If they sing “I love you” to a specific beat, it’s stealing. It doesn’t matter how simple the words or phrase may be. If you copy it, you pay.
January 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm
They’ve admitted that they were ‘inspired’ by it. This isn’t synchronicity.
January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Forwarding links OF the H&M website TO the artist because they noticed the line being sold and wanted to alert the artist.
January 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Ah! Thank you for clarifying.
January 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm
God damnit! I love H&M. They had better apologize so I can go back for that shirt with the birds on it.
In other news, I went to the liquor store for my first alcohol purchase today (two bottles of cheap wine) and I’m really happy I can be buzzed while reading Regretsy now, as one ought to be.
January 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
contemporary art = “hey i could do that!” / …but i didn’t
January 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Anyone could have, but they didn’t. She did. It’s a copy of her design. As I said, if they had done this is a different font, it would be a dead issue.
January 25, 2012 at 10:11 am
Not really, Helen. Copyright owners like the creator have the exclusive right to make derivative works based on their protected originals. Changing the font would, to my mind, simply create a derivative work, and therefore still infringe.
January 24, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Pipu: The fact is that yes, anyone could easily have done. BUT! There is reasonable suspicion here that it wasn’t just someone who happened to come up with the same idea (although stranger things have happened.)
I’m a little rusty at statistics, but if anyone here’s got an applicable algorithm, I’d like to see a run on the actual probability that these are two independent designs. My guess is less than .01%
Coincidence, when exposed, doesn’t usually anger people. Thievery does.
January 25, 2012 at 1:41 am
Aren’t we past “coincidence” yet? Didn’t H&M admit they were inspired by it? At this point, the issue is, how are they going to correct the situation?
Thanks largely to bullhorns like Regretsy, combined with internationally-public places like company Facebook pages, and rabid commenters/bloggers like us, I think they’ll find themselves Pay-pulled towards some public act of decency.
January 25, 2012 at 6:00 am
Precisely. Coincidence isn’t even a factor here. Well, it IS, but it’s so highly unlikely that I wouldn’t waste a dollar to bet on a million dollar payout on it.
January 25, 2012 at 6:01 am
“…well it IS…” = statistically speaking. Not necessarily in the realm of reality.
January 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I just googled it, and saw no mention of who made the original sign. If something is street art and someone else copies it, I’m not saying it’s right, but I also can’t work up any indignation. Did the original “artist” care enough to sign it? Or post it online claiming ownership? Anything? No? Well then, I refuse to be surprised that such an adorable idea was taken.
However, now that she has claimed ownership, and can back that up (I assume?) the decent thing to do would be for H&M to admit she was the “inspiration” and give her design credit.
January 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm
You should work up some indignation, because if you’re an artist who sells online, you’re in the same boat.
What if a retailer got a photo from an Etsy store that wasn’t watermarked? They can’t legally say, “Hey there’s no mention of who made it, so the artist didn’t care enough to sign it. Guess it’s mine now!”
If you want to use someone else’s work, you have to get permission, even if finding them is difficult. If you don’t, then you need to alter the work significantly to make it a new work. H&M did neither.
January 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I am kind of stunned at the amount of people posting that don’t get this concept….H&M stole from her, plain and simple. They didn’t create it, they don’t get to profit from it. If they do, they be douches. Lazy douches.
January 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I’m learning so much about copyright laws and protections from this debate. Thanks to those who know so much more than me who are able/willing to engage in civil debate!
My indignation is frothing, I assure you. It’s a virtual Santorum-fest up in here.
January 24, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Choosing to remain anonymous does not lack of thought, lack of care, or permission for someone else to claim credit.
January 24, 2012 at 10:04 pm
*imply!
Does not IMPLY!
January 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I guess they wouldn’t have a problem with this, then
January 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Bravo.
January 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm
If you can’t discover an artist’s name to at least credit them with an idea, THEN DON’T USE THEIR IDEA. That’s pretty simple.
H&M’s designers could have shown one tiny sliver of creativity by using a different font. They couldn’t even manage that much. I see no reason to share my money with a company who hires such blatant slackers.
January 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm
So, given what has been show here, you think H&M or one of their design staff, actually came up with the design idea all on their own and that they have every right to thumb their nose at Tori?
You actually believe they are justified and that the folks here are all just horribly in the wrong for being outraged about the situation and H&M’s response?
There is compelling evidence here for Tori’s story. What evidence to you have for your mockery of this forum and your stance against this?
Yeah, we should be ashamed of ourselves for thinking H&M should do the right thing. UP WITH CORPORATE THIEVERY! DOWN WITH THE LITTLE GUY!
Also, nice you hide behind “Anonymys” (must have taken hours to come up with that) while the rest of us are putting themselves “out there” for a cause we believe in.
January 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm
No, I don’t think one of their designers came up with it on their own. As I said, I think one of them saw it, turned it in for production, and never mentioned that they saw it somewhere else and decided to use it.
My point is that H&M would have had no idea. They simply would’ve assumed it was their artist’s design. Like I said before, their response so far as a company leaves something to be desired, so hate on that if you wish, but don’t accuse the company as a whole of being evil and thieving when likely, they had no idea before a few days ago.
And really, insulting my username? Classy.
January 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Actually, thank you for calling me out on the user name thing. That was completely uncalled for and I do apologize.
As for the rest, whether they knew about the artist stealing the design or not, once they found out, they chose to be flippant about it (or, at least, that one employee did) and are currently trying to bury it. To me, that stinks to high Heaven as a company. If they didn’t know, then they didn’t know. Once they found out, though, they did the absolutely wrong thing.
January 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm
You’re probably mostly right – an outside contractor or low-level designer brought the design in, someone liked it, H&M pushed ahead.
That, however, in no way excuses H&M. It’s their legal and ethical responsibility to hire honest employees and make good faith efforts to ensure that designs aren’t stolen. (One could also point to outsourcing design as a source of so many of these issues – if H&M would pay decent wages to real employees they’d have control over their design work.)
Perhaps a Google Image search of the design would have brought it to light – or at a bare minimum, when alerted to a possible theft, it should be bumped up the chain of command to someone who can do more than issue a badly written blanket denial.
January 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm
And seeing as it was posted on this blog in 2009, a simple Google search would have picked it up.
January 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Lol, yes, we’re all using our real names here. G Val.
January 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Not what I said.
Click on her name-link and it leads nowhere
Besides, I already apologized for that
January 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Sorry, you hadn’t when I posted that comment. Mine isn’t even clickable- a lot of people’s aren’t
I didn’t notice til right now. I just don’t use WP for much.
January 24, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Actually I’ve never clicked one before. I didn’t know I could link it somewhere. Ha.
January 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm
It’s probably true that the bulk of the H&M company didn’t realize the design had been stolen. But what was there response when confronted with evidence?
Well, apparently to figure it didn’t matter if they could just cover it up well enough.
January 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Yeah, good point- somewhere there is a single designer who should probably lose her job for being super unoriginal and copying a design so ridiculously literally. I’d bet she has, if only because it caused such a kerfluffle, and because they have “over 100 designers.” It would be smarter of them to SAY that, but if they did, they’d have to pull the products and lose money, and potentially open themselves up to a lawsuit, so I’m sure they won’t.
January 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm
A company is responsible for its employees/agents. Can’t handle accepting the blame for one of your dumbass employees who screwed up? Don’t go into business.
(Obviously I don’t mean you personally, but just companies in general)
January 25, 2012 at 6:43 am
I work for a designer and manufacturer of consumer products and yes, we are inspired by other work all the time. I might even use the phrase “You look nice today,” on a product. But I would change the font, nix the heart, make it look different. If I find art I want to use as is, I contact the artist and we discuss a license fee, and if I didn’t and legal action were pursued, I would be fired. It’s the company’s obligation to set guidelines and direct their employees on how to represent them. As a side note, people have copied our designs. We’ve taken legal action and won. Copyright infringement is real and punishable.
January 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm
You know, the phrase “You look nice today.” is not copyrighted, they could have easily taken the same IDEA, and made it THEIR OWN. They said themselves, they have a TEAM of 100 FUCKING DESIGNERS, you’re telling me that i can sit here, being the fat jealous loser that i am, and come up with THIRTEEN different ways to market that in TEN MINUTES, but a team of ONE HUNDRED, PAID, FUCKING, “ARTISTS”, can’t come up with ONE?! SERIOUSLY?! CAPS LOCK UNLEASH THE RAAAAGE
January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm
This, 100%. Borrowing an idea is fine, but are their designers really so stupid and incompetent that they never thought “hey, maybe I ought to switch up the fuckin’ font a little”??? Or maybe keep the font and change the phrase: “You are Beautiful” or “Have a Lovely Day”. At least that would be SOME nod in the direction of design integrity.
January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“It’s just easier to use something premade.” (like cookies!)
January 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Eh, I prefer to buy clothing that lasts for more than 3 washes anyway.
January 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Tori – post a link where we can buy something with your original image on it.
I wouldn’t mind hoping out of the shower and having a rug tell my vag that it looks nice today.
January 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Here is a nice necklace that a nice lady (not me) created with the back of the sign. She asked permission, and I gladly gave it. I was so flattered. http://www.etsy.com/listing/56908044/i-am-so-happy-you-are-here
January 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Also – some friends of mine will be screenprinting doormats with the “You Look Nice Today” design and selling them to help pay for leg surgery for our friend’s pup. I’ll keep you updated!
January 24, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Silly suggestion: that phrase might look cute on a coffee mug. Quite possibly down in the bottom for the drinker to see after finishing their brew.
January 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm
I’ve been looking for a new coffee mug and I would buy the heck out of that one were it for sale!
January 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Her product description says the sign is gone now. Do you know what became of it?
January 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm
For some reason (the last Regretsy Post), Welcome to the Jungle popped into my head. As long as everyone knows that this is a parody and should be okay under fair use, I should be able to avoid getting lynched.
Welcome to the S#i+ storm, we can cause you pain,
we know that you only want money, we know your games,
we are the army that can bury your company’s greed,
If you want more money honey, give royalties please!
January 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
This just seems like the following events took place:
-One of the “100 designers” was feeling lazy one day.
-Google imaged searched “cute”
-Found this image.
-Didn’t think anyone would notice, especially if they Photoshopped a segment of the “I” to make it a lowercase.
-Now it on the verge of pooping his/her pants hoping they don’t realize who turned in that design!
January 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm
At least they waited the requisite four years. It’s not your design after that amount of time. Can I just say I’m very ashamed of my fellow graphic designers. At least change the stinkin’ font and placement. Slackers.
January 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm
In what world is it not your design after 4 years??
January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Sarcasm, sweets. Sorry I confused you.
January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm
*whew*
For a minute there I thought I was transported to Insane World!
*looks around*
Hey, waitaminnit…
January 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm
I’m curious if they’ve finally given up scrubbing the comments, or if we’ve just overwhelmed them with the tide. So as of the time of this comment (4:45) the oldest H&M facebook post on their theft is by Kim Cerullo “about 1 hour ago.” (There are actually 2 in a row from her. lol. Good job keeping the pressure on, Kim!) The previous (unrelated post) is from an hour before that, by Thania Brenes.
January 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm
You have to remember they’re a Swedish company… it’s close to midnight there.
January 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm
And another thing, did they have to make it into a door mat? That’s just cruel on several levels.
January 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm
#youlooklikeanasstoday Should help to collect our tweets together! Nicked from FB – at least I’m honest enough to admit it!
January 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm
their artwork is more than just referential, it’s clearly a near exact copy of your artwork. Not ok.
Step 1, go to the us copyright website and register your copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/
Step 2, call a good IP lawyer if you haven’t already.
January 25, 2012 at 10:13 am
Hear, hear. This post gets it right, and in fewer than 50 words.
January 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm
I suspect that HM changed it juuuuust enough to avoid copyright infringement.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t classless losers, however. Let the boycott begin!
January 25, 2012 at 10:14 am
Wrong.
January 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm
So I could just start making t-shirts based on Banksy work?
January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I wonder if he’d have to confirm his real identity in order to sue you….
January 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm
I know you didn’t really mean this as a real question, but…
Oddly enough, a person may not have to reveal their real name to sue, as long as they are not using a pseudonym for fraudulent reasons. I believe that they need to have their real (legal) name on the original filing (not 100% sure of that), but that this need not be revealed in any of the subsequent documents or even to the party being sued
January 24, 2012 at 3:09 pm
You literally could, though. Banksy thinks copyright is naff, but it’s equally naff of both sides. He doesn’t believe in artists obsessing over ownership and profit any more than he approves of corporations doing the same. His words:
http://themovingsilent.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/picture-35.jpg?w=640&h=366
January 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I suspect he’s secretly rich already. It’s easy to not care about ownership of intellectual property when money isn’t an issue for you.
January 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Yes I think he’s doing just fine. Did you see “Exit Throught Gift Shop”? He travels the world and even rented warehouse space in New York as memory serves. I’d say he’s got income enough to not care. Travel is expensive!
January 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I read somewhere that Mr. Brainwash was already independently wealthy before becoming a famous artist/perpetrator of hoaxes. I think he’s either bankrolling Banksy, or they’re both rich from old money, or he actually is Banksy.
January 24, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Plenty of people are rich and still obsess about it. But,
A: Banksy WOULD have to reveal himself to bring a lawsuit, and seeing as what he does is usually illegal, that’d be pretty fucking stupid. Plus, destroy the mystique and therefore his popularity.
B: He doesn’t profit directly from his work- ie, he doesn’t sell it outright or anything like that. People copying him in the same medium (ie, painting his designs on buildings) just raise awareness of his work, since nobody can tell who the hell did the spraypainting anyway.
I think it’s kinda shitty for him to be saying everyone else should operate the same way.
January 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I was going to say, I’ve actually seen his imagery used on a lot of stuff. Always assumed it shady. Interesting!
January 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm
If you are an Etsy artist, you could:
Look at all this original handmade merchandise!
http://www.etsy.com/search/handmade/clothing?search_submit=&q=banksy&view_type=gallery&ship_to=US
January 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
It was not anonymous.
The work was copyrighted.
It was not vandalism, she had permission.
It doesn’t matter if you think a design is unoriginal or uninteresting. You can’t appropriate someone else’s work and reproduce it for profit without permission.
January 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Even with the proper authorities involved and positive proof of copyright infringement, the “little guy” can rarely, if ever, win a court case. The “Big Guys” will intentionally drag it out for so long that the “Little Guy” eventually can’t afford to spend another dime of their life savings and other loans that it takes to fight this sort of thing. Tens of thousands of dollars later, the “Big Guy” wins, no skin off their nose, and the little guy spends a good long time trying to recoup their loss.
I’ve been there
I know
Organized boycotts and bad press can go a lot further, especially from those of us who used to shop there (I guess I’m one of the half).
January 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Well, I think R. Land (my favorite Atlanta artist) might disagree.
http://clatl.com/culturesurfing/archives/2011/07/06/forever-21-found-rlands-loss-cat-adopted-without-asking
January 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
That’s excellent for them, Tori!
Lucky too!
It’s good the offending company immediately pulled the design, but that sadly doesn’t happen often when the company is WAY bigger than the individual artist.
January 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm
So R. Land took a photo from a “stash of old photos” at a Kinkos for the base of his poster. Did he credit the photographer? Did he ask the photographer’s permission? Yet he won a lawsuit saying that it was HIS work?
How does this translate to the current situation?
January 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm
@hubris I assumed that the “stash of old photos” was his own…but if not….lolz.
I’m not quite sure what the legalities are for found materials like that- I mean, look at Found magazine. It’s filled with other people’s photos and they can only credit the person who found the photo- not the photographer or the people in it.
January 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
The internet is the proper authority sometimes.
If I had hired a lawyer to get Paypal to reopen my account, I’d still be in court and out several thousand dollars.
January 24, 2012 at 4:29 pm
A Regretsy mob of indignant FJL isn’t exactly like just bitching to your best friend. A lot of us ARE artists. And with a few exceptions, we’re all little guys. A LOT of little guys. Some of us with very large mouths.
Do I think Tori deserves compensation? Probably a little bit, but she won’t get it. Do I think she deserves an apology? Damn tootin’.
So, when you piss off a bunch of people who’ve had work stolen, fear having their work stolen, or who are just tired of feeling like they have no power to right the wrongs, things can happen.
And no, as I pointed out in an email to H&M, I wasn’t a customer before. But I didn’t go around actively telling people that H&M sucks, either. Now, I will.
I don’t know if we will accomplish anything. Hard telling if we will ever see a result. But I can virtually guarantee the design crew will be warned to knock it off. And the corporate world knocking it off, I would assume, is our goal.
January 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Oh, I wasn’t aware that she had permission, and upon reading the responces to my comment, I agree with you all and I withdraw my sentiment.
January 24, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I received permission to paint the sign. Good try, though!
January 24, 2012 at 3:21 pm
TWEET IT! #HMsteals
January 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Well, it’s not like I ever shopped there anyway. I just have even more reason not to go there.
January 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I literally registered just so I could comment on this…
As a resident of EAV, my girlfriend and I used to see the sign all the time and it, honestly, was one of our favorite parts of living in the Village (And we miss it! Since you’re here Tori, we’re kinda wondering what happened to it!)
Because of our fondness for it, we would have gladly bought everything H&M had of the design IF they’d just asked permission. As it stands now, their Atlantic Station store will have two fewer loyal shoppers.
January 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm
The sign is being safely stored in the ol’ Atlanta Lock & Key building!
January 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
That picture of the burglar I posted on their facebook wall said it ALL.
January 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm
H&M is deleting wall posts about this, but evidently failed to notice all the comments about it under their links. My personal favorite: “i’d put up a picture of my balls, but they are so awesome I’d be worried about them stealing my sac and selling it , claiming one of your designers are very capable of creating balls like mine……which clearly they are not”
January 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 25, 2012 at 12:40 am
But it’s still tasteless bullshit behavior.
Anyways, they DIDN’T alter it by 40%.
Keep on trollin’ though.
January 25, 2012 at 9:40 am
That’s a fallacy. Please do some research before spouting stuff that you heard somewhere and decided to take as fact when it’s not at all true. There is no percentage that makes it okay to rip someone’s work.
By the way, did you know that if you bang your head as hard as you can with a big hardcover book it doesn’t really hurt, because all the paper cushions the blow?
January 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I never shopped at H & M, but I never had any reason. Until now.
January 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm
I am too fat for the clothes that helps me not shopthere
January 25, 2012 at 6:30 am
lol i was gonna say that! i can’t fit into their damn size 12 and under
my hubby gets his trousers there though so i’m officially boycotting them now. no trousers for hubby! 
January 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Jerks. I hope this bites them in the ass.
January 25, 2012 at 3:04 am
I hope they lose so much business. If you’re going to rip stuff off, I won’t be buying your products.
January 24, 2012 at 4:38 pm
h&m: hijack and misappropriate. tweet it bitches.
January 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm
If one more person uses the term international copyright law
I am going to light something on fire.
Did they rip her off-totally. Will she be compensated or get an apology-probably not.
January 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm
I heard you were talking about International Copyright Law?
January 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm
HA I enjoy you. light the FIRE.
I think they fully ripped her off, and the responses she is getting aren’t connected to the project who came up with it obviously. It’s just too big for that kind of connection. I mean the company.
All the talk of international copyright is bogus. Countries may have agreements but they aren’t obligated to enforce them on behalf of another country
http://thepiratebay.org/legal
Has some pretty good examples of highly funded legal teams
January 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
I got marshmallows!
Anyways…I don’t doubt what you say is true. The little guy can’t usually win against the big guys one on one in a court of law. Most legal affairs are simply a matter the haves and the have nots.
The court of public opinion holds a lot of sway though. Let’s hope this artist sees results from it.
January 25, 2012 at 10:15 am
Kinda right, kinda wrong. Check out a recent US case allowing for extradition of a UK citizen whose activities infringed copyrights here in the US.
January 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Uh, International Copyright Law. And fireproof–because you are wrong. Just because we don’t have one ruling party of golbal overloads at the moment, doesn’t mean international law doesn’t exist. It’s governed by treaties, and countries that are party to treaties are generally legally required to enforce them by their own governments. For example, the US is required to enforce any treaty that Congress has ratified. We have numerous copyright treaties with Sweden and other EU countries. With almost all other countries, actually. Digital copyright violation on peer-to-peer networks is a legal minefield for a set of reasons that simply do not apply to physical objects like signs and pillowcases. The copyright obligations here are obvious, and if HM were found to be violating teh artist’s copyright, Sweden, the UK, and any other EU countries definitely would be on the hook for enforcement.
January 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm
*global overlords. God I wish I could blam autocorrect for that, but really its just lack of sleep.
January 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm
ITS A GROUP
join if you like b/c H&M…. will just erase mean things written on their page
H&M <3 Thievery
http://www.facebook.com/groups/218909271534480/218911164867624/?notif_t=group_activity
January 24, 2012 at 6:08 pm
From the Facebook page: “Oooh…I bet everyone would love a Spongedave Boxpants shirt…you know he’s kind of a nerdy sponge who lives in the ocean and has a square body and wears square pants. What’s that? Nickelodeon Network has a Spongebob Squarepants character? I assure you it is not the same. Everyone will buy the Spongedave shirts and Nickelodeon will have no grounds to sue. Promise.” I thought it was funny.
January 24, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Never shopped at H&M. Yet more reason to never start.
January 24, 2012 at 6:58 pm
This is what happens when you crowdsource your designs.
This is also what happens when you don’t aggressively protect your work. Look up the guy who created the yellow smiley face, for example.
January 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm
http://youtu.be/1s0hEi8zhmg?t=1m48s
January 24, 2012 at 8:02 pm
So interesting how all you wanted to do, presumably, was make fun of shit, and now Regretsy is this dreaded activist organisation, the angry raised shaking fist of the Internet. It makes my life a better place.
(That, and the average intellect (ie. ability to do things like use its/it’s) of the FJL, which adds the pitchfork to the picture.)
January 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Also, the design is brilliant. I would love to buy a doormat and towels like that if I can be sure the money for it goes to the person who deserves it. So I’ll wait until someone gets industrious (putting the Lazy in FJL myself).
January 24, 2012 at 8:42 pm
This made it to the front page of reddit too. I can’t wait to see how bad it is in the morning.
January 24, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Yes, because this had absolutely no impact.
Please. Public opinion and media scrutiny are the only weapons many people have in dealing with large corporations. A young artist doesn’t have the resources to hire a lawyer to go head to head with a multinational conglomerate like H&M. They would file motions and continuances until they bankrupted her legal fund.
This took a few hours and H&M is already publicly posting that they want to work this out with her. I would say they’re taking her seriously now.
January 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Awwww c’mon….I would be flattered if someone stole and profited from my “I peed in a horse once” thing.
.
.
.
.
.
Then I’d sue the fuckers.
.
In my mind, anyway.
January 24, 2012 at 10:41 pm
H&M
We are looking into the situation concerning the issues many of you have raised and will contact Tori LaConsay directly for further dialogue.
Like · · Share · 55 minutes ago ·
*waiting*
January 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm
I have legal experience with copyright infringement and I can assure you that what I saw here on regretsy was infringement. The attempt to change minor details such as font and “heart placement” actually proves that H&M knew it was an infringement and that the “designer” deliberately tried to circumvent the law. However, as any halfway competent lawyer can tell you, they are even more screwed now.
I guess they can be glad SOPA didn’t pass or Tori LaConsay would be pwning their website about now…
January 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm
German artist Anne “Trenchmaker” Pätzke, who draws the cuddliest, cutest little animal characters and puts them on DeviantArt has been featured by numerous Chinese mass-produced trinket makers on etsy, but also by Spanish fashion brand Zara on their baby clothing line.
It seems like FJL:s like us are beginning to make a difference, though. Let’s keep up the good work. Who needs cheap fashion anyway, when you’ve got Etsy?
January 24, 2012 at 11:57 pm
to me it does not look like they “changed” the font, so much as they tried to find the closest match to the hand drawn lettering they could.
(I know I am late to the party tonight… things are crazy over here)
January 25, 2012 at 12:04 am
I used to live in a neighborhood that had a little tiny hand painted sign hidden on the windy road it took to get to our house. It was nothing bigger than a Slurpee cup and was often humbly repainted by locals every so often to have a bird, flower or whatnot. That sign was THE BEST. I loved coming home and seeing this small reminder of home after a long day or drive.
Tori? You are super awesome for making your sign and I’m sorry some douchebags are stealing the spotlight from you doing a wonderful thing for your neighborhood.
January 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
I wrote to them on their customer service site and on FB. Let’s see how much shame it takes to get them to address the issue. Someone should forward corporate a link to the Regretsy vs Paypal story so they can see how this is going to go.
January 25, 2012 at 7:34 am
Just so you know, Finland continues to love you. This story was featured in the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti.fi today
January 25, 2012 at 7:57 am
This reminds me of the Eat More Kale lawsuit going on in Vermont. ChickFilA is trying to prevent Bo Muller-Moore from using a slogan he created over 10 years ago.
NPR covers it here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/06/143195033/chicken-vs-kale-vt-artist-fights-chick-fil-a-suit
January 25, 2012 at 8:38 am
You might be interested in this new post in DP review:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
it has many similarities.
January 25, 2012 at 9:03 am
Speaking as an intellectual property lawyer, Helen and others who posted to this effect are correct – it isn’t the words, it’s this arrangement of words with the heart element, in distinctive lettering, and the way the elements appear starkly on a plain white background, which creates an original impression, and certainly sufficient originality to be the subject matter of copyright, which inheres from the moment the work is created. The UK is a signatory to the Berne Convention. In all countries where the Berne Convention applies, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration. Indeed, most countries do not register copyrights. You just have to assert it. (In the US and in countries that do register, you generally have to register to sue).
January 25, 2012 at 9:05 am
Oh, and anonymous works are 100% entitled to copyright protection. That it’s hard to find someone doesn’t mean you don’t have to try. Anyway, it sure wasn’t hard to find Ms. LaConsay, was it, H&M?
(ow!)
January 25, 2012 at 10:17 am
Laura! Paisan! Glad to see that someone else with experience is weighing in. I would’ve stayed silenter up above if I knew you were down here getting it right.
January 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Ah, but you made the point about statutory damages and that no notice is required (any more). Very important.
January 25, 2012 at 11:31 am
I had a copyright and contracts lawyer for an crazy aunt (she’s retired… although not from being my aunt, or, sadly, being crazy)
And she boiled it down to the following for me when I asked her to “laymen, non crazy” it for me
“Once the work is created,
so is the copyright,
once the work is Published (where the public can consume it)
the copyright is enforceable,
once it is registered,
the copyright is actionable
and registration only becomes necessary when the work requires legal action to defend.”
January 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Hmm…your aunt could have been much stronger on this. It’s hard to enforce a copyright before registration. Enforcement, for all intents and purposes, should be folded into the point where the copyright is “actionable,” which, indeed, is at registration. Without registration, enforcement is very, very limited, to the point of being not worth mentioning. And you don’t defend a copyright: you enforce it. You’re the plaintiff, and the defendant has to defend his or her actions.
Well, you did say she was crazy.
January 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm
This is extremely disturbing to me because i look like shit today
January 26, 2012 at 12:07 am
Just wondering: How was it proven that Tori was copied from and not the copier? I didn’t see a date on the photos posted …
January 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I believe H&M US headquarters are located in Atlanta, so this would explain a lot.
January 28, 2012 at 6:17 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.