'Not my work' - New Zealand artist wants mural removed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 мар 2023
- After Flox presented a concept design for a building mural, RM Designs decided not to proceed with commissioning her artwork. So she was shocked to see her design on the side of the building months later.
Subscribe to 1News: bit.ly/1NEWSSubscribe | Join the Fair Go team as they stand up for the underdogs and consumer rights.
WATCH MONDAY 7.30PM ON TVNZ 1 OR CATCH UP ON DEMAND: www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/fair-go
FOLLOW FAIR GO ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / fairgonz
Instagram: / fairgonz
Twitter: / fairgonz
TikTok: / fairgonz
For the latest news from Aotearoa and overseas: 1News.co.nz
This is the official channel of TVNZ's 1News, where news and current affairs reports are uploaded from 1News, Seven Sharp, Breakfast, Q+A, Fair Go and Sunday.
Why do artists in any form have to continually apologise for wanting to be paid for their endeavour?
Concept is not ownership. If you took an architects design model and then built it without paying them there would be no question that intellectual property was being ripped off. 15,000 wasn't a huge price tag for a mural design. Don't take someone's plan and rip off their original idea after paying only $1500
You don't get to be that rich without ripping off a few people along the way.
Architects get you to sign a contract though. These guys should have had one in place. It's pretty well known in the creative world in NZ that you have to contract out of the comisssioning rule. Still, the designer tasked with ripping off her file knew exactly what he/she was doing. There should have been plenty of alarm bells going off.
Sorry but your wrong......The business PAID for the concept drawings/plan so they now own that concept, .....end of.....Should have better contractual agreements at the start.
@@marx4325 I agree, but they also claimed that SHE did the artwork for recognition which goes way beyond an understandment of that agreement.
@@paul-green-photography You're forgetting, though, that verbal agreements and other casual business statements are considered binding in NZ, and the developer specifically said the artist wouldn't need to worry about any IP shenanigans in obvious reference to the issue you're describing (despite his later denial), and that statement is legally enforceable as an agreement even if you didn't have an email to prove it. You don't need a formal contract to enjoy legal protection in NZ, the fact that he said he wouldn't rip off her IP is enough if you can convince an arbitrator or judge that it's what he meant, and I don't think that would be hard. Sure, this might have been avoided if she had a written contract, but that can be quite onerous for a small business like this, which is why NZ law doesn't require written contracts in order for people to be legally protected. At the end of the day, the developer was just being an exploitative prick, so I just hope people see this and nobody ever hires his firm again.
It was at that point that RM Designs realised they had fucked up.....
I'm laughing at the haters in the comments basically saying the artwork isn't to their taste, therefore the artist is wrong.
RM Designs -...engage artist...say nah...basically steal design...pocket money...rip off everybody...then act all innocent.
Looks like that bridge got all 'Bernied' up didn't it?
With abseiling equipment and scaffolding they should be able to do this as a painting on the actual wall. They're using computer programs that can take a set area say 10 meters by 7 meters and apply their already digital art work to scale. The rest is a graft of ensuring you have it all correct and paint it. Other artists have done incredibly large areas by hand using such digital methods to help map the site. They have great work, it's so kiwi it's great to see. Once an artist produces the piece of work is should not be allowed to be tampered and then used. Copyright has to be given not taken.
iwould totally agree with that if they hadnt taken payment for the design
Her work was plagerized..all needs to do is a few spray cans to make it right.
Imagine if someone used his designs without paying him
Thank You for sharing this report
Straight up theft.
Can't believe someone at that level would even think about doing this.
I wonder how R M Design would react if a client of theirs behaved as they did against Flox.
Unless clearly stated in a contact the concept designs belong to the client who paid for them
The artist made the status of the concept art and its associated IP very clear in their written communications, and the developer agreed that they wouldn't have to worry about any of the shenanigans that concept pieces are often subject to-a statement which he later tried to retcon into something senseless and unnecessary instead of the plain and obvious thing he'd originally said. He was asssuring them that he wouldn't rip off their concept work, and then did it anyway and is now trying to plead ignorance and covid stress. The guy is clearly an entitled prick who thinks he can just rip off anyone whom he considers beneath him.
@@michaelheliotis5279 oh yes morally wrong, but under our law probably technically legal, that's the problem, their wording was too general and open to interpretation
@@steverobertsdesign Actually, verbal agreements and casual agreements like their emails are considered binding in NZ, you don't need a formal written contract. And NZ law doesn't care about what he explicitly specified in the email, it cares about the intent of what the parties were agreeing to, which the email serves merely as an indication of. It's clear from the email that the developer's represented intent was not to subject the artist's IP to the kinds of shenanigans that commissions are otherwise subject to, and I don't think the artist would have a hard time convincing an arbitrator or judge of that. The problem is that because the remedy she wanted was removal of the infringing art installation, rather than compensation for it, she'd probably need an actual (expensive) court case rather than a much cheaper arbitration. At the end of the day, the guy was being an exploitative prick, and I hope everyone sees this and nobody ever hires his firm again-assuming the original client hasn't already killed his reputation among all their rich friends, because we know how word of mouth can be especially powerful in NZ.
@@michaelheliotis5279 I do agree in all that you write except, I think the email was not clear, it was ambiguous and could be deliberately interpreted in other ways. It's tricky, I'm a designer, some work I do is all mine until paid for and other work belongs to the client from concept to finished product and is paid for bit by bit, like hourly rate. Also the ip isn't mine once sold, be that a concept design or a finished work, some clients just want ideas and pay me for those, but I have been not paid by some clients too
@@steverobertsdesign Oh certainly there is a level of ambiguity there in the email, but the law doesn't require there to be any specificity in an email like that in order for an agreement to exist. In the case of an informal agreement like they had here, it exists between the parties independently of the email itself. The email is just an indication as to what that agreement or its terms actually were, and the fact that she raised the topic of IP issues and then he responded by telling her she had nothing to worry about is a reasonable indication that he indeed knew about the legal complications and potential abuses surrounding concepts and commissions (which is itself a reasonable assumption given that he would deal all the time with architects who face similar issues regarding concept IP), or else there was nothing for him to be reassuring her about and everything he said in the email makes no sense. Unless he can provide some other reasonable explanation as to what he was reassuring her about, then the only remaining explanation must be held true.
By all means, the email isn't concrete proof of any terms and they both would have benefited from a formal written contract, but if one applies reason to the manifest expressions of the agreement (namely the email communications between them), then it's not hard to discern what terms each party was representing to the other for the agreement, and what the developer's intent was at the time. A lot of people don't realise just how loose and interpretive New Zealand's laws and jurisprudence really are, thinking that it's all about the letter of the law or the explicit terms of a written contract-like we always see in American TV shows. But actually the New Zealand legal system is overwhelmingly based on the application of reason and equity-even moreso than what is typical for a common law system-with adherence to the spirit of things taking priority over the letter of things, and with fairness taking priority over technicality. So while there's no guarantee as to the outcome of an actual court case, I would fully expect her to win if she'd actually had the the tons of money required to pursue one (though the court might not agree that removal of the artwork was an appropriate remedy given the developer didn't own the building, so she might only have been eligible for damages instead).
Also, I hope the people that screwed you over go bust as well. 🙏
Someone got $150g... not the artist
$15,000 for a vector is a bit of a reach
$1500
The 15,000 is for the original design. The 1,500 is just to get them to make a prototype for you.
People pay more for shitty NFTs of monkeys. $15K for full rights to an instantly recognisable high quality design from a nationally lauded artist? That's something worth every cent.
@@michaelheliotis5279 never heard of them
@@michaelheliotis5279 exactly.
RM designs definitely out to rip someone off , it's like in the music industry or an achatectual house designer making a slight change and calling it there's, just got to be so careful these days people out to steal your Thunder down under ...
i dunno my favourite artist zack mcclaughlin makes amasing paper birds & he sells kits so you can try making one, very very generous of him to share his knowledge & creativity & he doesnt charge crazy amounts of money, hes absolutely uber talented & ive bought his hummingbird, barn owl & butterfly kit & have learned so much from him. during lockdown he did video tutorials for free for his barn owl that you could download the plans for ....for free!
They were ripped off, period!!!!
You gave away too much of an idea that they now claim as their own minus the $15000
So they got paid 1500 for what??????
Don't take someone's plan and rip off their original idea after paying only $1500
well they should have refused the money (the 1500) then they would have a case
She uses Google images and cleans them up along with stencils and basic spray can techniques not an artist and I prefer the free hand styles like Charles Williams etc...
Completely incorrect - she has a long history of hand drawing and hand stencil cutting her artwork, then spray painting. Yes she uses digital techniques now as well, but definitely not "google images". All good if you prefer other artists, but don't make assumptions about her process.
@@Tim_warpTV she said it on the video she cleans up Google images
@@alastairdow4400 not at all - listen again - they commented on what low resolution images from Google look like, and if you just trace them you end up with the type of poor quality artwork the building got initially. Not to mention tracing and reproducing images directly from Google is most likely breaching copyright.
Fiverr artists create this all the time
Bloody oath, artists on ipads just don't make organic looking art. Her stuff looks like it could be the cheap prints you remove from new picture frames
@@MattStrike yep & i doubt very much that its even original you can put so many filters on stuff & change a stock image beyond recognition in a couple of clicks
So how many other people has this happened too and cause shes a big name artist and got on fair go she gets it sorted, morale is have good contracts (its a lesson so many business owners/self employeed people learn along the way)
I work in IT and do Engineering and concepts are constantly done and then slightly changed because they don't want to pay the coin or decide at the time they don't want to to do...Life isn't always fair and the Law is so outdated only a few get it sorted.
v. cool intervention.
Can say the same about Copy Cat artwork of Maori Carving Weaving Printing etc especially of Ancient Maori Patterns and the like...
Now businesses everywhere will engage the services of F(AI)X.
Humour aside anyone with a scintilla of graphic appreciation can see the semi-alterated version is inferior.
It's not the Kiwi way..Stand up Ashvegas.
She is the concept designer not the artist. The artists are the tradesmen who actually put the mural on the building.
Year 9 art level at best, It looks like she's gonna have mitre10 after them for plagiarizing wallpaper designs or some
I think her and Ross have something going on just saying
They paid for the concept and they got the concept. She's not in the right here.
No patent. Stop crying.
Graffiti artist lol
Complex
Complete
Con.
Chatgbt would have done a far superior job for free....average art to say the least...drama Queen
It already looks gd give the flocs nothing lol
haha hard
This is why artists have watermarks or signatures on the paintings...
so why did they pay 1500? they bought the design & to be fair they only have to change it slightly if at all since what did they pay the 1500 for if it wasnt for a design. it doesnt reflect good on the artists , i think they probably wanted to charge too much money so the company went elsewhere with the design they already paid for , that sounds & makes more sense
thats just really ridiculous , kind of precious attitude since they paid for the design ...artists copy & get inspiration & reproduce stuff all the time taking styles from other artists ...i mean flox didnt invent graffitti & surely using stencils is copying banksy ? maybe best to have a signed contract that clearly lays out the terms
Stop tagging...it not art ..it tagging..or we will tag over ..street crap not art