Meek Vs Brothers Neilson

Meek’s wall at an Empty show done in 2003
658emptyshow.jpg
(click to enlarge)
Brother Neilson Ad Early this year.
library-12627.jpg
Brothers blamed it on the designer- anyone know his/her name?
I think the most embarrassing part is the wak handstyle

6 comments

  • That’s truly weak. As you’re showing the labels can’t necessarily control what their staff are doing, but what freaks me is that apparently these “designers” think they’re going to get away with it? “Yeah, so this piece is for an Australian company, hmm, I have no talent, so perhaps I should rip off an Australian artist on a piece of paper which is going to be distributed around the country, surely nobody will notice?”

    That poster/whatever truly is an abortion. Whoever did it should have their fingers broken.

    In other news: Nice one Rone, this sort of thing needs to be exposed. Not sure if it’s just my browser though, but I’m getting some serious dark text dark background issues.. I need to highlight the text just to read what’s going on.

  • yeah yeah, i agree man, its not right to bite other peoples work!!!! use ur own talent, an if u aint got ant naff off, i’ve had to much of my work nicked by some little screff an its annoyin but nvm, yeah that txt is a bit blagging……

    brink

    the irony of librty is no-one here its truly free

  • First email I sent.

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Meek Stencils [SMTP:[email protected]]
    Sent: Monday, 21 March 2005 6:27 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Breach of copyright

    > >

    To Whom It May Concern,
    The attached images show
    1. A brothers neilsen advertisement
    2. An art piece from an exhibition which I produced in 2003

    I think they clearly indicate a breach of copyright if not intellectual property. I am hoping that whoever approved these ads was unaware of the original source and it is simply the work of one “designer” which has allowed this to occur. I am sure your company disapproves of such behaviour.

    To correct this matter I would like the following to happen:
    a) You cease to use the aforementioned image
    b) Written (emailled) confirmation that you will no longer use it
    c) A letter of apology

    Should I not recieve any of the following I will have no choice but to take legal action.

    meek.

    _________________________________________________
    Reply from Brothers Neilsen

    From: Abe Hanna
    Reply-To: “[email protected]
    To: ‘Meek Stencils’
    Subject: RE: Breach of copyright
    Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:05:41 -0000

    Hi Meek,
    This is an unfortunate situation. As far as I know our artist who produced the artwork has  responded to you. When you threatened legal action in your initial e-mail, they took it seriously and spoke to their solicitor who is on the Copyright Board. His advice to them was that there were no laws broken.

    Our artist has informed me that her initial inspiration for the artwork came from the TV show Big Brother with their puppeteer.

    I understand your feelings and assure you that this was a one off situation. The ad will no longer be used.

    I wish you well.

    Regards,
    Abe

    Abe Hanna
    Marketing & Promotions Manager
    Brothers Neilsen Pty Ltd
    11 Davo Court
    Burleigh Heads 4220 Qld
    07 55221943
    0418798071

    _________________________________________________
    Reply from “Designer”

    From :
    Sent : Monday, 21 March 2005 5:57:32 AM
    To : [email protected]
    Subject : Meek Stencils – Copyright

    To Meek,

    I refer to the above matter and to your email I received last week.

    I am the freelance “designer” commissioned by Brothers Neilsen for the
    ad. The allegation by Meek of copyright infringement and
    intellectual property is misguided.

    The finished product showing Paul Fisher surfing a wave is a copyright
    work belonging to Andrew Shield. The artwork prepared by me is an
    artistic work, the copyright in which vests in me. The combination of
    these two items together also amounts to an original work capable of
    copyright protection.

    While there is a similarity between the idea of a person standing as a
    puppeteer, there is no copyright protection of an idea. Protection
    exists in the work itself. The work which I have created has in no way
    been copied from the work created by Meek. On this basis,
    there is no infringement.

    ——————
    Raylee

    _________________________________________________

    Funny how B.N. were really apologetic, if they claimed they did nothing wrong…..

    I looked into legal action, and spoke to a journalist who was going to do a story which would have involved me speaking to a lawyer for free. When the story didn’t go ahead, neither did the legal action.

  • That ‘designer’ is the one that is misguided. She says there is no copyright protection of an idea. First of all obviously you have both used the same idea and the same kind application. Sure there is no copyright on the idea of a puppetteer but there is on the idea of a puppetteer in that stance done in that way. If you can prove – as you obviously can – that you thought of it and created it first with images and dates then you definately own it and they should have to do more then send you an email.
    That’s one of my favourite pieces of Melbourne street art. I love your stuff Meek and that angers me. If you want advice there’s a really nice Intellectual Property lawyer here in Melbourne called Choy Lawyers

  • Thanks for the advice BlackHotPink, but do you know what they charge? I.P. lawyers tend to cost an absolute fortune…

  • Raylee you weak piece of shit…..there is a job for you at Tsubi.

    The irony…in reality you would love that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*