nissan // btoy
March 31st, 2007 by miso
btoy piece:
[unfinished]
>>http://www.ekosystem.org/photo/7660
nissan ad:
>>http://www.nissan.es/home/vehicles/passenger/J10/index.html?ln=/es_ES
(51 votes, average: 4.45 out of 5)
Loading ... (51 votes, average: 4.45 out of 5) Loading ...-
Pages
-
Categories
- advertisign (104)
- Advice (3)
- animation (29)
- art (180)
- automotive (7)
- clothing (215)
- design (276)
- film (44)
- graffiti (53)
- literature (3)
- music (62)
- not a rip (22)
- photography (34)
- retail (92)
- Uncategorized (128)
- video game (19)
- web (115)
Nissan’s not ripping off this artist, they took a photo of their car infront of a wall which happend to have graf on it.
if you put your art on a wall, you’d have to expect it to appear in other people’s photos.
that they photochopped it to make it suit the composition better is a non-event IMO
if i’d done that piece i’d contact Nissan and see if they’d commision me to paint a car for them.
adam- you got no clue.
It’s not the same piece. It just looks the same. hence the rip.
Adam……
the car is NOT parked infront of the wall that was painted.
the wall that was painted has gravel and grass infront of it. the nissan is parked on a clean surface.
look at the face of the character mate – it’s been changed ever so slightly.
l don’t get how blind and misguided people are who come to this site, l thought they would at least be half aware of what goes on out there in the real world.
oh well.
I think the nissan one is actually better. haha.
That car is totally photoshopped in front of a “wall.” The Nissan piece is not the original! Look at the face, its different. Meaning, someone at Nissan liked the original and “re-designed” for this marketing piece.
i can spot 6 differences. that gets the designer off the hook – legally, if not morally.
Since when did some dumbass start spreading this “6 differences” rule? If that were the case, Slylock Fox would have to charge newspaper companies twice.
Yes, this was not taken in front of an actual wall. The car was parked in a studio so that studio lighting could be used as the photographer pleased.
The idea that someone is dumb enough to think that pictures that good can come from just driving a car around until someone says “Oh hey that looks like a neat mural, park here” is asTOUNding.
don’t be a dumb arse – this image was ripped, end of story!
Isn’t Adam right though? I’m actually not sure. Unless the artist was commissioned by the property owner to paint a mural on that wall, the owner of the wall has more legal rights than the artist. Nissan appropriated an image of a public space for their advertising.
I just found this site off of Craigslist. This is a great site and much needed. For this post though, does anyone know the artist and asked him if he was ripped off? I ask because a couple of years ago my son was contacted by an agency doing these ads for Nissan in Sweden or somewhere, and I know they commissioned about 4 urban style graffiti type artists, including my son, to do these ads for magazines. They paid well too. Just wondering if anyone knows if indeed he got paid for this work and they didn’t just take it.
I agree. Someone should ask the artist. Sometimes I feel like people really want to believe that these corporations are maliciously ripping independent artists off. I know it happens, but we should get our facts straight before we make asses out of ourselves, you know?
from btoy::
“Hello
Was sad for us to found out some of our artwork in a advertisment without any advisment or permission.
We know that street art it´s public & should be for everyone.
The thing in that case its that in fact they didn’t take this image from the street,they take it from the book that we publicate this chistmas with belio…so the image is registered to us & belio with copyright.
i know that is the same photo that we take cause i multiplicate both images(original & fake) in photoshop & the lines match perfectly
We are planing now to get into legal actions .
When a big huge company wants to apropiate of something public it’s a problem of ethic”
[[taken from:: http://www.ekosystem.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3822&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=btoy+nissan&start=0
Miso,
I applaud your efforts to assert your rights. Just remember, the bad guy is not Nissan; it’s their ad agency.
Nissan paid those guys an extraordinary amount of money for original art and ideas, with all rights cleared, so it’s not just you who’s getting ripped off – Nissan is getting screwed as well. After all, their ad agency has just exposed them to significant legal liability, which is not what Nissan was expecting when they awarded the account.
The fact is NOBODY who puts content in front of major audiences does so without Errors & Omissions insurance (aka E&O.) This is what protects you – as an advertiser – in the event that you hire some unscrupulous designer who rips off another artist, sticks your logo on the ‘new’ image, sends you a six-figure bill for their ‘work’ while triggering legal action that lands you in court. The fact that the ad agency was, in all likelihood, making a ton of money will ripping off clients and artists alike only makes this more galling.
So Miso, assuming you do get paid, it will probably be Nissan’s insurance company that ultimately foots the bill, since it’s unlikely that the agency can afford the kinds of damages to which you’re entitled. This is exactly the kind of situation that advertisers buy E&O coverage to handle. And you can be damn sure that this cost will cause somebody’s insurance rates to go up. And that, in turn, will most likely lead to somebody further down the chain loosing their job. That’s just the way the jungle works. In any case, more power to you. Just remember to focus your moral indignation where it belongs; on the agency art director who designed the ad – not the unwitting client who, like you, has been ripped off by the same shady guy.
That’s not to say you shouldn’t sue Nissan. You should. They’re the distributer, and that’s always the most appropriate target for an infringement suit. But that doesn’t make them unethical, any more than accidentally read-ending someone at a stoplight makes you a criminal.
In fact, they’re as likely to be as appalled as you are – maybe even more-so, as they’re the ones who will have to pay. Ultimately, their insurance should cover your claim, and you can leave it to them to settle up with the bandit who threw a turd into their punchbowl.
that’s a good point.
except that it’s not my artwork.
the piece is by an artist called Btoy and it’s his issue, i’m just posting the case on this website.
mano, com us estavieu quartos. Tant e diners us acabaran fent mal de panxa i si no tant de bo us en fessin.
This is a common misconception. Just because artwork is in public does NOT mean it is in the public domain. The rights to an artwork automatically belong to the creator, even without formally copyrighting or putting the copyright logo on the art.
Of course, he would have to prove it was his artwork, which isnt too hard in most cases.
In such cases, it might be appropriate to sue the agency, the client, or both. Or it might be that the client gets sued and the client sues the agency.
I think sueing is ugly but ripping off of street work is getting way out of hand and i believe more precedent needs to be made to show the corporate world it will get hit where it hurts for stealing.
I think if the artist is worried about his rights, he shouldn’t paint his work on other people’s property.
Kind of ironic that he’s all pissy about his art being stolen when “street art” by its very nature is illegal.
I would say its more the artists ripping each other off.Nissan add looks like sam flores, btoy is just that, a toy.
JEREMY WILSON IS AN IDIOT. illegal? My god man, where are you from the, planet pocket protector? Its that very art work that lines the walls of our cities which is fast becoming a tourist attraction and is even conserved by councils and old men with grey hair. Who would of thought that a BANKSY stencil on a city wall could be insured for 250,00 dollars? Get out of the nerd convention man.
it is a tuff one. But if it was a picasso at the wall, there would be no problem because everybody knows picasso.
so the artist who made the original graffiti is not that famous… so?
the question is if the nissan guys are claiming the drawing to themselves, or they assume it is a re-use of a third party artist?
unless they’re saying they drew it themselves… it is not stealing. they’re showing a real urban landscape, that exists as it is so…
If they’ve putted the coliseum behind the car, people wouldnt say theyre stealing the architecture. It happened tha the building behind the car is not the coliseum but one with a drawing on the wall.
If they photoshop it later, doesnt really matter. the key question is “do they claim it as being fully created in their studios?” if don’t… no stealing, just showing.
its a rip.
face it.
they stole a design and now the ad agency should have to answer…
if they are showing- great, publicity is awesome…if they claim it, they are breaching your rights as a creator of visual art.
As btoy explained this is not just a blatant rip off its an actual scan from his own protected publictation.
the guilt lies with some creative with no soul and too many deadlines. the ad agency would of churned it out with out even realising.
This is just a sucky situation.
I wonder if the add agency got the idea from seeing this guy’s graffiti, or buy seeing it in the book he claims to have printed.
I just don’t know what these graffiti artists expect.
I also doubt that a big company like Nissan would knowingly steal. After all, the bigger company, the bigger the lawsuit, the more money they have to pay the guy they stole from. I think that most of the time it’s the little companies that steal from the little guy because they have less to loose.
So who does the artist sue when another artist draws over his work?