H&M and the curious case of stealing graffiti

Another day, another high street collection of clothes inspired by runway trends for less. Copying in fashion is no longer a stigma, in fact, customers shopping the fashion forward collections at the affordable chains expect to see ‘relevant’ collections on their rails. From the Saint Laurent inspired skinnies to Supreme inspired logos, there is barely a runway trend that doesn’t get reflected onto the high street.

Behind the scenes, up and coming designers and luxury houses are often at loggerheads with high street brands, who blatantly copy and infringe on intellectual property.

H&M is no stranger to the controversy of using other designer’s works, but its latest legal battle is an interesting case in point. The Swedish retailer received a cease-and-desist letter from Los Angeles-based street artist Revok (real name Jason Williams) after one of his murals appeared in an ad for the brand's New Routine line of workout gear.

In the letter, Williams cited copyright infringement as it was “unauthorized use of his original artwork." Further adding the ad "is likely to cause consumers familiar with his work to believe there is a relationship between the parties."

How did H&M respond?

In response, H&M incredulously filed its own federal lawsuit against the artist, asking the court to declare that Williams had no copyright to assert because his mural was created illegally, like most graffiti.

"The entitlement to copyright protection is a privilege under federal law that does not extend to illegally created works," the brand stated in a letter to Williams and his lawyer.

As soon as the news was picked up by social media, several artist began a backlash campaign against the retailer, including one who drew a gravestone that read “R.I.P. H&M on Instagram.

The news quickly went viral

“Fashion retailer H&M filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in New York, allegedly asking the court to essentially rule that any and all unsanctioned or illegal artwork, such as street art and graffiti, should be devoid of copyright protection and can be used by any brand or corporation, without any payment or even needing the artist’s permission.“

Of course the idea that H&M is suing an artist for his own work is beyond comprehension. For a retailer who earned over 500 million dollars in the last quarter to prevent an artist’s work from being copied by H&M for its campaign is both ludicrous and a dangerous sign of how it chooses to exercise its power. Instead of championing artists and designers, the behemoth makes no apology for stealing nor extending the respect and recognition the artist deserves.

According to publication The Fashion Law, “while copyright infringement cases that center on unauthorized graffiti are almost always either settled out of court or amount to a losing battle for the artists, it is worth noting that the bar for obtaining copyright is very low. A work need only be: o riginal and composed in a fixed medium. Nowhere in the Copyright Act does it expressly state that illegality is a bar to copyrightability.”

The social media backlash was effective

H&M was quick to respond when it began receiving criticism from the global art world. In a retracting statement the company said: "H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art. As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank everyone for their comments and concerns, as always, all voices matter to us."

Photo credit: Journalist’s own; H&M campaign video still