Artists vs. Influencers: Why That Street Art Selfie Could Get You Sued
Social media stars who use murals as a backdrop for sponsored posts are in the crosshairs of artists who claim infringement: "I have had about a dozen of these cases already this year."
Featured on hollywoodreporter.com
First, it was photographers who went after stars who posted unlicensed photos of themselves on Instagram, like Gigi Hadid, Khloe Kardashian and Jessica Simpson. Then, war began between street artists and corporations like Mercedes-Benz over the use of graffiti in ads. Now a hybrid scenario is sparking a wave of legal threats du jour: social media stars posing in front of murals without getting permission to use the art.
These street art selfies are poised to become the next legal battleground for influencers as artists grow wary of their work being associated with brands. "I have had about a dozen of these cases already this year," says attorney Jeff Gluck, who represents artists in copyright infringement matters. Those cases were resolved without litigation, but experts say it's only a matter of time before someone sues. "I can very much see graffiti artists pursuing influencers in the same way they pursue brands," says Ellie Altshuler, an attorney who reps influencers in brand deals. "Deep pockets are there, and they may make the argument that even if it's not for a direct commercial purpose, their business is creating content and building their following."
Sources say the going rate for an Instagram paid post is up to $500,000 to $1 million for an influencer with 100 million-plus followers (like Kim Kardashian), while someone with 15 million to 20 million followers (like Liza Koshy) might bring in $100,000 to $250,000. Street art is ubiquitous, and even a cursory search on Instagram returns results for problematic images. "My guess is, you're going to see a couple influencers get hit hard," says Stephen Doniger, a prolific copyright lawyer.
Fair use is a common defense in copyright infringement claims and likely would be relied upon in such a case. One of the factors courts consider is whether the use is commercial. But that analysis can be tricky in the age of influencers. "Most of the content posted by social media personalities is inherently commercial," says Gluck. "Their posts are all heavily curated and strategically trying to build their persona and their business."
So if an influencer — let's call her Becky — is paid to endorse pumpkin spice lattes and she poses with her Starbucks cup in front of a Melrose Avenue mural, the argument that her post was commercial in nature is clear. But if Becky just pops by for a pic in front of Colette Miller's popular angel wings street art at Orlando and West 3rd in L.A. for a nonsponsored post, it could still be considered a commercial use.
When it comes to Instagram-bait like the wings, entertainment litigator Jeremy Goldman argues there may be an implied license. "The context suggests there shouldn't be liability when an artist is luring people to photograph their artwork for the purposes of social media," says Goldman. "I don't think it's necessarily fair to draw the line that 'I'm OK with nobodies, but influencers don't get to participate in the trend.' "
Click here to read the full article.