Copyright in graffiti seems to be a hot topic right now, as another case emerged in New York, involving an artistic work created by the artist called REVOK. REVOK sent a cease and desist letter to the retailer H&M after a mural he created was the backdrop for a photo shoot for a new line of H&M clothing.

H&M responded boldly to the cease and desist letter by filing a lawsuit arguing that the artist does not have copyright in the graffiti because it was done on city property without the permission of New York City, and therefore constituted vandalism. This case had the possibility of creating a precedent with respect to graffiti art, and artists responded swiftly. A campaign to boycott H&M quickly grew on social media and built to such a magnitude that the retailer felt forced to respond. The response to the lawsuit was so swift and persuasive that H&M withdrew their lawsuit.

If H&M had considered what the public response to their position and to their lawsuit would be, it might have avoided the backlash that resulted from these actions. Ultimately, the public response to an intellectual property lawsuit can be more important than the legal merits of the case. Very few copyright cases reach the courtroom, but the public backlash can be felt immediately.