The language here is important, and it shows why artists often have a hard time proving copyright infringement.... Proving substantial similarity is a thorny issue. It isn’t enough for her work and Starbucks’ campaign to look alike....
July 2, 2015
"Hayuk’s claim says Starbucks 'brazenly created artwork that is substantially similar' to her own..."
"... and the 'Frappuccino Campaign is essentially identical to the Starbucks campaign 72andSunny proposed to Hayuk.'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
50 comments:
Next thing you know, Juan Valdez will start saying you're abusing his coffee beans.
30 year ago, Mrs. Tank was doodling just this kind of thing. If I can find one of her old drawings, can we sue Hayuk?
Why buy the cow when you can get milk for free.
Other Hayuk Suits
I guess it shows you shouldn't create art that is so easily duplicated.
Starbucks should say she refused to create art for them because they are gay.
@MayBee
Winner !
I picked 1, Yes because Burnt, but upon reflection how deeply corrupting, and the truth is, that is probably the heuristic in place ... Oh ... Everywhere, I guess.
Is it wrong and in what sense, to say YbB? Burnt is totally immaterial. However, it may be the best or only way to reach such a firm, at least with an anti-burnt message. You may say that with the advent of the 4Bucks Blonde roast, message received; but why dint they fix their ordinary coffee?
You need an option for people who buy their coffee from the gas station instead.
Why is this considered 'art?' There appears to be nothing original, inspiring or even of superior craftsmanship quality.
Very, very ordinary.
I originally voted: Yes, because Starbucks initially tried to hire her, then did something close to copying.
Then I read the article linked by Howard. I have changed my mind. She is a serially suer and needs to be stopped by the courts. Or some body.
"You need an option for people who buy their coffee from the gas station instead."
The gas station should sue Starbucks for stealing their idea for coffee with a burnt taste.
I reject the notion that it can't be art because it's obvious.
I recall back in undergrad days that a saying in the dorm was sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me. But no one took that phrase in the air and turned it into a song until Rihanna (or her songwriters) did. (Terrible song, but still, the points stands).
There is a genius in taking a phrase, or idea, that is floating around, recognizing it for what it is, and then commercializing it.
W1AW's code practice broadcasts (MWF 4pm eastern 7048 and 14048 kHz) are doing summer reruns.
Yesterday's 35wpm was about calculating antenna sag and nomographs, which broadcast long ago.
Bicycling to the store to buy instant coffee.
I love Starbuck's coffee. Am I the only one (here)?
Don't tip the barista. She'll just use it to buy another nose ring.
- Mike Munger
Here is her art.
The Universe
The Universe 2
Hand Across the Universe
Sexy Gazebo
Kites #1
vs.
mini frappuccino
I think Hayek could sue the Confederate Flag!
W1AW's code practice
Code practice? Morse code??
Do you study Navajo as well??
I think Hayek could sue the Confederate Flag!
The gay pride one, too.
Instead of suing, she should work mini frappuccino into her art.
The little mermaid, or whoever she is, can be submerged into a cup of Piss Frappuccino!
@MadisonMan:
There is a genius in taking a phrase, or idea, that is floating around, recognizing it for what it is, and then commercializing it.
Mr. Lippman: "Elaine, these ideas are all in the air. They're in the air."
Elaine: "Oh, well then, if that air is coming out of this face...then it is my air and my idea."
She's got a case but the fact that she previously tried to copyright the color yellow works against her......If I were Starbucks I would include and highlight a few lines of burnt orange in the kaleidoscope in order to reinforce brand awareness.
I would vote probably no. Since so much of her work is either derived from work in the public domain or from other artists in this instance what is the protectable element? However since it costs money to litigate the safe bet is on Starbucks to settle with her.
Assuming no taxpayer dollars are involved, this is all really none of my business.
re: Anyone else love Starbucks, their Blonde roast.
[A]n artist who lives in Brooklyn and typically paints large scale, vividly colored, geometric murals.
OK, you have no talent, how can you still be an artist?
Move to Brooklyn? Check.
If you can't make it good make it big? Check.
If you can't draw, go geometrical? Check.
BTW, I love Starbucks coffee, even if you call it "Charbucks." I think they put Ritalin in it.
Do not like Blonde roast at all.
I think whoever invented the blacklight poster should sue her.
@ tim in vermont: check.
I'm not normally a fan of abstract art like Hayuk's, and I certainly wouldn't pay to put up one of her pieces in my living room. But it *is* cheerful and pretty, and I could see decorating a store wall in that style. It's hard to make a copyright case with that sort of abstract geometric design, but this one really does look like they made only a few minor changes.
Add agencies and other corporate creative types do this sort of thing all the time. There's a possibility it's accidental - someone at the agency had made a mockup based on her work along with some other concepts (possibly including from some other artists), and forgot to remove it from the pool when Hayuk turned them down. If I were on the jury, I'd probably vote for infringement.
My impression has been that every coffee, other than their regular, is pretty good at Starbucks.
I hereby copyright the color red, as in Pantone 185.
As a consultant, I pretty realize my clients are going to steal all my content. That's why I focus on selling my thinking and creative problem solving, something that cannot be ripped off and duplicated.
My initial suspicion is that Starbucks approached Hayuk, but didn't like how much she wanted to license her works. So someone in the Starbucks chain said to someone else, "We want art that looks like Hayuk's but is different enough to avoid a lawsuit."
Now, if Starbucks had gone straight to Step 2, they would have a much stronger defense, but (apparently) having negotiated with Hayuk first, they've left themselves vulnerable, particularly in front of a jury. Hayuk can almost certainly get (and has gotten) counsel to take this on a contingency basis (meaning no money out of her pocket). I predict a quick settlement, unless Hayuk gets greedy.
My favorite coffee now, in Madison: 5th Element on old University (very pricey though). Indie. Crescendo. Colectivo. Cargo. Barriques. Starbucks is way down on the list.
What is it with Coffee places that start with 'C' and end with 'o' ?
No, because copyright goes on for every and this needs to stop.
Regards — Cliff
5th Element... I hated that movie.
As a coffeshop... I walked by it. Wanted to go in, but didn't want be the only one there.
Funny that people call it "Old University," as if every is still confused about this new thing, Campus Drive.
I hated the 5th Element too (the movie). It was weird, like a fever dream is weird.
You can tell a true Madison resident by 'old university'
My local barriques has been letting me down recently, guess I need a place that ends in an O. Instead I have taken to cold brewing at home for the summer, pretty simple to make a pitcher, filter it the next day, and making a half gallon batch as I do it lasts the week.
Missing option:
* No because Hayuk's art isn't really that similar to what Starbucks is using.
(of course, judging from the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine kerfuffle, my standard of similar is different from the courts)
Funny that people call it "Old University," as if every is still confused about this new thing, Campus Drive.
Maybe because that's the name?: http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/pdf/olduniversity.pdf
Also, Hayuk's art is mellow and relaxing, much better than Starbucks', which is screechy and annoying. That probably doesn't help her case.
I saw that stuff at a Starbucks recently & thought "huh, someone in their graphics department did a Google image search on Geometric Abstraction."
How about Leonardo? Doesn't he have a claim for all the rip-offs of the Mona Lisa?
Or maybe the statute of limitations expired some time in the last 5 centuries.
Never mind.
Doesn't the estate of Herman Melville have a claim - at least for free coffee.
I am at Whole Foods when the young woman in line in front of me has her card declined for her various organic and free-range goods. She is embarrassed, and offers another card: Declined.
The line behind us gets restless, because Whole Foods shoppers don't have any patience for people who can't afford to shop there; me, I am just buying Tic-Tacs to get a forty from my debit card. Orange Tic-Tacs: Whole Foods Shoppers hate those, too, for whatever reason.
As I said, the line is getting restless and bitchy, and I recognize the girl as a Barista at my Starbucks, so I offer to pay for the young woman's various organic and free-range goods in exchange for a consensual blow-job.
She looks at me, looks at her groceries, pauses, then shakes my hand, smiles, and says "Done."
Now the female cashier is restless and bitchy. Also: not smiling.
"That's not right," she says.
"I think we solved the dilemma," I say, then open my orange Tic-Tacs before I have actually paid for them: the cashier is now officially Outraged.
"That is SEXIST," she growls, in that way that makes the nose-ring that pierces both her nostrils vibrate. Her chubby goth thighs may be vibrating, too: I choose not to look.
"Actually, I think this is Economics," the young woman says, gently stroking the free-range organic banana in front of her. Stroke, stroke, stroke the free-range banana.
So, anyway: she got her groceries and then gave me a blow-job in her Prius.
So, to her parents, I say: Thank you for raising her right.
I am Laslo.
I predict an out-of-court settlement.
How about "No, because Starbucks has a 'burnt' taste"? I like the burnt taste...
I hope she loses, and I hope the "Blurred Lines" decision gets overturned. This is a much stronger case than "Blurred Lines," so I assume Starbucks will settle. But IP law is out of hand and needs to be reigned in.
So, how are those conversations about racism going with the baristas and the customers?
I said "Yes, because Starbucks did something close to copying" because -- look at it! Her style is intersecting beams of color in a particular palette, like you might get off of a stained glass window. The Starbucks cup is the same intersecting beams, the same palette -- it's a mockup of her idea.
For the people putting down Huyuk's style -- what more do you want? It's attractive, it's distinctive. It has at least some commercial appeal. If I had one of her paintings, I'd be happy to put it on my wall. Vermeer she ain't, but who is?
Post a Comment