By Elinor Diamond. A Reminder of what we are missing in Mountain View. The original Street View was withdrawn by the artist.

Updated: Feb. 8, 2014

Elinor Diamond, the artist who won the Mission Local contest to turn the tech bus into a vehicle for art, has asked that we replace the Google Street View she used in her original entry with a different Street View.

The Street View of the original art included part of storefront painted by Jet Martinez, an artist who did not want to be part of the contest. It also included the opening to Clarion Alley where some other artists opposed to the tech buses and the contest have art. The artist and the judges were unaware that the storefront was a Martinez work.

Although Diamond’s image had been up on the site for more than two months, once it won, it triggered a barrage of comments from these artists and others — raising questions of who owned the image, art and feelings toward the Google buses.

While Mission Local was happy to stand by Diamond’s original work, it is her work and the decision to replace it is hers to make.

She wrote in an email, “I wrote to Rigo and Jet personally because we know a lot of the same people and I couldn’t handle the venom behind so many of the comments….I told them that I would send over another mock-up to ML of the same concept using different screenshots and request that ML pull the original. After all it was the concept that won, so I guess we can see if it has legs with other imagery…And another using a street-view of Mountain View. Now we can all see what we’re missing out on.”

Diamond is right, the concept was most important. The Street Views possible are endless. Once again, her entry shows a sense of humor, an element reflected in one of her original images and also in those from many others.


The entries are in, the judges have spoken and Mission Local will award the $500 prize in its unofficial contest to bedazzle the tech buses to Elinor Diamond for a design that wraps the shuttle in an image from Google’s Street View.

Diamond, a Mission resident who we have not yet spoken to, chose an image that includes the Valencia Street entrance of Clarion Alley and the pink Community Thrift Store. In the end, Diamond’s design appealed to us on multiple layers and it was the simplicity of the idea and the complex response that put it over the top.

It brings “the virtual world to the street,” said Andrea Valencia, our translator and a Mission resident.  “The image blends the bus in with the street giving them the camouflage the tech community seems to want. I also like to think of it as a moving mirror of our urban landscape.”

Mark Rabine, a contributor, my husband, and a Mission resident for more than 30 years, added, that in an age of ambiguity “using the Google Earth image conceptually raises both light and dark aspects of digital technology.”

Others liked the layered sense of the entry, but for a different reason. The street view Diamond chose underscores art and giving — both have deep roots in the Mission.

Using a Google street view also offered a simple solution to wrapping a bus in the iconography of any neighborhood. It was an idea that other entries used including one by Jon Voss, called Time Travel. It too was popular along with Let It Leak by Ulrika Andersson, Cattle Car by David Lawrence, and Wheels by Claudia Escobar, a former videographer for Mission Local who now works on contract at Yahoo.

We launched the contest last fall after my return from a year-long break from the Mission. As I told a local news site at the time, I was surprised to see how many buses were going through the neighborhood.  The lack of any identifying markers made them oddly anonymous while their size made them impossible to hide. The white frames of many reminded me of unpainted canvases.

As long as the buses are around, it seemed like a good idea to make them and their passengers less separate from the community. I also thought the contest might encourage some of the companies that run the shuttles to hire local artists to do the work. At least one has agreed to. Genentech called in November to say that it would select one of the entries to wrap one of its buses this year. What others will do is anyone’s guess, but we will make an effort to sell them on our winner.

Of the more than four-dozen entries that we received, at least 15 had a critical message, sometimes subtle, sometimes blunt and often with humor. At least four, including Let It Leak played on the theme of surveillance.

In addition to the front-runners, judges also flagged several of Stephanie Syjuco’s designs — including Public Comfort and Raft of the Medussa.

As in Syjuco’s designs, the element of humor stood out in many of the entries — from Mike Esplin’s Lyft to My Other Car by Ifton Schlinger and Erno Raitanen’s Aw Snap, Something Went Wrong. Mike O’Connell’s Googling, with a Craigslist view of apartment prices, was perhaps the most direct in capturing one element of tech’s impact.

The 11 judges included myself, Mark Rabine (who submitted “George Orwell” but was not allowed to vote for it) and George Lipp, who are contributors, Ana Aguilar, who works in outreach, Rigoberto Hernandez and Erica Hellerstein who are reporters, Hélène Goupil, an editor, Andrea Valencia, who is our translator, Rohan Saltry, a computer science student at UC Berkeley who also works with Mission Local, Amanda Martinez, a former videographer and designer for Mission Local who works at NBC in New York, and Mads Hallas Bjerg, a 29-year-old visiting tech entrepreneur and philosophy student from Denmark. All but four have lived in the Mission.

Thank you to all who submitted work.

Follow Us

Founder/Executive Editor. I’ve been a Mission resident since 1998 and a professor emeritus at Berkeley’s J-school since 2019 when I retired. I got my start in newspapers at the Albuquerque Tribune in the city where I was born and raised. Like many local news outlets, The Tribune no longer exists. I left daily newspapers after working at The New York Times for the business, foreign and city desks. Lucky for all of us, it is still there.

As an old friend once pointed out, local has long been in my bones. My Master’s Project at Columbia, later published in New York Magazine, was on New York City’s experiment in community boards.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how you make that long-held interest in local news sustainable. The answer continues to elude me.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after browsing through some of the post
    I realized it’s new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely glad I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!

  2. The Nazi German Theresienstadt concentration camp, called “the Paradise Ghetto” in World War II, was designed as a concentration camp that could be shown to the Red Cross, but was really a Potemkin village: attractive at first, but deceptive and ultimately lethal, with high death rates from malnutrition and contagious diseases. It ultimately served as a way-station to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

  3. That certainly cut through all the self-righteous indignation. Well said…I hope the artists who feel their integrity has been maligned do right by your forward thinking Aunt.

  4. Clarion Alley is named after my aunt, Juanita Rieloff–for her support to CAMP during its early days.

    In her honor, her name is on the lower right hand side of Clarion Alley’s Valencia entrance, on the Community Thrift wall. To be perfectly honest, out of respect to her, I would like to see her name displayed a bit more “artistically” than it has been up to now.

    I assure you, knowing my aunt and her support for the arts, I think she would have been on Mission Local’s side–because it is helping artists get work and recognition.

    In fact, the first thing I thought when I saw the huge Google buses was… “they should be painted over with work from local artists.”

    One thing you can say for the Mission… the political banners have many colors… and they are based on “only in San Francisco” issues.

    Finally, Lydia Chavez is an amazing woman that has contributed a great deal to this community. She has been very supportive of Chile Lindo over the years. But, most importantly, she is giving journalists an opportunity to grow professionally. I know Mission Local’s work and it is first rate. Also, I know many self-serving artists… (don’t get me started on that one!)

    Activists, save your energy… there’s lots of work to do, and an artists’ contest is not where you’re most needed.

    Paula Tejeda
    Chile Lindo

    1. That certainly cut through all the self-righteous indignation. Well said…I hope the artists who feel their integrity has been maligned do right by your forward thinking Aunt.

  5. Big Thank you Elinor Diamond for withdrawing her image of Clarion Alley Mural Project (CAMP) and Community Thrift and replacing it with a new one!

    It’s truly unfortunate that Mission Local put her in this position to begin with – knowing that three of the artists (myself, Rigo 23, and Jet Martinez) who are core organizers of Clarion Alley Mural Project (and Jet painted the Community Thrift facade) were so strongly against the contest and its underlying implications with regard to creating a divisive corporate transit system. It would have been more responsible on ML’s part to at least let Elinor know the position of the artists and that her design was selected for its concept, therefore another image would also be acceptable. While I don’t support these private shuttles and the class caste system they create, I do appreciate Elinor’s decision to provide a new image.

    And I want to respond to Lydia’s point in this article that the image of the bus was up for two months and no one called it out until it was announced as the winner – Lydia, that’s because we weren’t reading your publication or following the contest … until it was brought to our attention.

    Also there has been a lot of discussion around copyright with regard to this particular incident. I want to clarify that CAMP has never suggested copyright infringement or that we would take legal action in this case. However, we do register our murals with the U.S. Copyright Office, we do have an attorney, and we do take action when we feel a case has the merit to do so.

    Finally, as I’ve previously noted, the issue in this case is one of respect. CAMP’s artists have collectively donated tens of thousands of hours of volunteer time over the past 21 years – it’s truly been a labor of love. We do pay our artists a small stipend for materials when we can, but it in no way matches the amount of time and energy that folks give. The project did not start as a magnet for tourists or as an icon for San Francisco; it began as a project to build community with the neighbors on the alley and to help showcase the works of local artists. We do love sharing our work with folks and we have many great encounters with locals and visitors daily. We are always happy to share our work – it’s FREE – but we have drawn the line for commercial purposes … PLEASE contact us for written permission … and if we do agree, please give the artists and CAMP credit. One of the things that has made Clarion Alley a unique space is that we’ve been going strong with integrity for over 21 years as a volunteer-run space without commercial ties. The few times that we have agreed to allow commercial projects to film on the alley, we’ve gone through a long process of ensuring compensation and credit to the artists & CAMP. And if we say “NO” please RESPECT our wishes.

    1. Megan, you are correct that Elinor has done a number of people a favor here, especially as neither she nor ML were under any obligation to. Elinor is perhaps the only person here who comes out of this debate with an elevated reputation.

      Also, I agree with your analysis that this is not fundamentally a legal matter at all. It’s more about whether an artist can and should change his mind when he has previously granted approval when he finds out that the entry has won a contest. That’s why I believe that ML were correct to stand firm, unless Elinor consented of course.

      A couple of niggles, however. Jet cannot credibly cite “divisive corporations” as a reason not to rubber stamp the use of the partial image of his work when he has done a commission for a divisive corporation. We are entitled to such consent not being granted capriciously or inconsistently.

      Second, while Jet’s politics is a valid reason for him not wishing to enter a contest, it should not be a factor in him withholding his permission when he is otherwise happy to grant it.

      By analogy, my barber still cuts my hair even though he disagrees with my politics. And I don’t get refused service in Mission establishment just because the host has different politics from me. We should be keeping politics, religion etc. out of business.

      Finally, you guys have gotten a lot of publicity out of this. I’d never heard of you guys before, nor ever wandered down Clarion Avenue. I might do that now. I suspect the art is a little gaudy and primitive for my taste, but I’ll try anything once. Point being, you finished ahead.

      1. Jet agreed to be an artist-in-residence at Facebook, and I assume he was well paid.

        He said in the email exchange he did not want to be part of the contest and would not have been paid any of the $500 prize.

        That you haven’t heard of or walked down Clarion Alley shows how disconnected from the culture of San Francisco you are.

        Have you at least heard of/walked through Balmy Alley? There are many streets and alleys in San Francisco with art. The Lilac Mural Project is another.

        Just because you wouldn’t read comments (though actually you do) doesn’t mean Lydia Chavez isn’t.

        1. I never said I hadn’t heard of Clarion Alley. I said I had not walked along it. It’s always looked kinda sketchy.

          There’s a lot more to the culture of the Mission than the things you personally like and we respect diversity here, right?

          I have walked down Balmy St. It’s not a style of art I like but I can see why some others so.

          My comment about Lydia not reading all these posts was that she had already said that she has made her decision and that she is happy for us to continue the debate. Sounds to me like she is looking ahead.

        2. Oh no!!! I live on Balmy Alley and I really do not want this self righteous bkkkks John walking around, unless he has time (he does!) and its willing to experience some real diversity… John, diversity is much more than just co-existing… come by my house and let me show you what diversity is… I choose dealing with you (you your community, your culture, your language, etc!) so it’
          s you come deal with us. Seriously, leave the bar stool and your pabs, and fxxxxing interact with your neighbors!

    2. If you and the other CAMP artists are seeking respect, you should really treat others the way you would like to be treated. Using social media to say that the editor of Mission Local “sucks” is extremely disrespectful and immature, and will only alienate you and your work. And some of the comments by the CAMP artists on this thread and in the initial email exchange are also extremely disrespectful. If you are trying to “build community” with your murals, the last thing you should do is publicly disrespect someone who is working very hard to make sure that the community you paint in is reported on. You should check out the publication sometime and read about what’s going on in the community you hope to build.

      1. “Using social media to say that the editor of Mission Local “sucks” is extremely disrespectful and immature, and will only alienate you and your work.”

        Megan is entitled to her opinion, just as you are. You just don’t like her opinion. Of course if you agreed with Megan you’d have written “What a very respectful and mature comment to make, I agree with you and thank you.”

        It really depends upon who serves as a shill and hack for whom, and your comment answers that.

        1. No, she was just being abusive and you are seeking to rationalize that.

          I suspect Lydia has long since stopped reading this sanctimonious nonsense about the wounded pride of sensitive artists. So all the abuse really achieved was to lose you sympathy and support.

          I get that artists can be emotionally volatile and all, but I am concerned about how tone deaf to criticism your little coterie has been on this matter.

          Here’s some advice. Give it a rest and move on.

          1. @John

            Again, you’ve wrongly assumed that I’m an artist or one of the artists here. I’m not. I don’t paint art. I support the artists involved. As I wrote in another comment, my point was about copyright law (see those comments/links to copyright articles).

          2. Mike, Megan already said that a legal remedy is not appropriate there so your claim that copyright law is relevant here is immaterial even if it applies, which I personally doubt in a case like this.

  6. Did this article conveniently “forget” to also mention that all the organizers for CAMP were included in an email chain with Mission Local’s editor in chief as the contest? An email thread in which they several times voiced their dissent against this contest as a whole? Making this sucker instigate when it slams CAMP for but dissenting until the winner was announced? Interesting. This is some “responsible journalism” for sure… Sling more mud. It suits you Mission Local.

  7. I do not agree that it is her work…images of murals are copyrighted…public can photograph for personal use but any repurposing of the image is protected by copyright. We do not like the fact that mission local is not reporting the legal implications of using repurposed work. I also do not think that you are representing the community of the mission district…u are run out of Berkeley…please JUST GO AWAY…people of the mission…WE are here to stay…pray for day…when our papers don’t pander to those that harm us by using our images to placate us…worst community involvement ever…please leave the Mission…Please leave the Mission….Please leave the Mission….SOS…my people are under distress…

    1. My people? Really? It’s all about people like you but not about anyone different from you?

      Some of us prefer diversity.

      1. A racist accusing someone else of racism. Priceless.

        Our community shouldn’t support Filipinos because they aren’t like us. Shame on Rainbow, right John?

        Maybe you can share your analysis of the relationships between the spellings of last names and political views. In Spanish? Tagalog?

        1. You’ve never heard me speak of “my people”. That is blatant racism.

          My point about the Rainbow deal was only that they were claiming it was a community gesture. It was. It was just a community in another continent.

      2. John – you’ve proven yourself to be a racist troll through many of your incendiary commentary.

        Go away troll.

        1. Your allegations are false and you know it. Personal attacks on me stiffen my resolve to be here and drive out bigotry and prejudice like yours.

          So your cheap snide game is self-defeating.

          The use of term “my people” is disgusting.

          1. Self-deluded pot kettle black. Does the health insurance you brag about cover mental health services?

          2. The disadvantage to writing tens of comments daily is that they provide clear evidence of your racism and other irrational beliefs.

          3. Here are just a few recent ones, smart guy. I use the term ironically because your comments show otherwise.

            February 7, 2014 at 8:47 am

            “Mary, When WalMart gave massive help during the floods in the south, did you praise them?

            Because that actually was in their community, and the Filipines are not in ours.

            Was there really nothing local to the Mission that Rainbow could help with?”

            February 6, 2014 at 7:33 am

            “If you look at the names on the ML masthead, five of the eleven are Hispanic names (Chavez, Hernandez, Valencia, Franco and Sanchez).

            I agree it’s entirely reasonable that ML should take a race-neutral stance on topics but it appears the odds are stacked against it.”

            That’s more effort than you are worth.

          4. OK, so there’s absolutely no racism at all?

            If you think that is racism, you really need to get out more.

      3. “Some of us prefer diversity.”

        From what I’ve read of your comments, you’re not part of the “some.” In reality your statement is called newspeak. The conservatives/right-wing are now using all sorts of newspeak, such as the word “diversity” to disguise their pro-gentrification/pro-tech agenda Only when it comes to sanitizing an area and bringing mostly young white people (techies) into an area are you suddenly for so-called “diversity.” It’s newspeak. It’s most transparent how corporate shills and hacks (a.k.a. trolls for the real estate and tech industry) toss out words like “diversity,” when they mean the exact opposite. It’s as phony as the “CIVIL sidewalks” newspeak BS used during the sit-lie campaign.

        Very transparent. You’re fooling no one.

        1. Wrong, Mike. If an area with no whites in it then receives an influx of whites, it necessarily becomes more diverse.

          When that trend over-reaches, one can argue that it starts to lose diversity, but that is nowhere near the case in the Mission yet or in the forseeable future.

          The people who really misuse the word “diversity” for their own ends are the so-called “progressives”. What they really mean by “diversity” is no whites allowed.

    2. “I also do not think that you are representing the community of the mission district…u are run out of Berkeley…”

      Yeah, I find that odd too. When I first came to this site, I had (wrongly) assumed it was based en el Distrito de la Misión de San Francisco. Wouldn’t you think that’s where it would be?
      Then there’s the non-corporate look and logo.

      But then I read: “U.C. Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.”

      What? What does that have to do with el Distrito de la Misión? Shouldn’t you be writing about Berkeley instead?

      I now see this site very differently: A corporate site—but pretending to be non-corporate and for Latinos/Hispanos/Mexicanos/Chicanos et al—and pro-tech and pro-gentrification. In other words, the complete opposite of what I had thought it was.

      1. I also meant to say this:

        I’ve been on other sites where the resident trolls hate the site they’re trolling on, and they troll the site day and night.

        This site is different in that regard. I would think that this site would greatly appreciate the efforts of resident corporatist troll, John (he’s the most odious and bullying one I’ve seen here). He dutifully serves as a corporate hack and shill for the real estate, tech-surveillance industries and continued gentrification with his newspeak repertoire. He rushes to defend this site and Lydia Chávez and anything she does, it seems.

        I would think she would greatly appreciate his presence here. A site that comes with their own corporatist cheerleader(s).

        1. Not true. I have criticizing the ML staff a number of times for over-emphasizing pieces on the tech shuttles and gentrification as if the Mission community held one unified opposition to those, when in fact the truth is much more diverse, nuanced and balanced.

          I do think ML did an excellent job on this contest.

          I am happy to commend or criticize as relevant. You’ll see no knee-jerk toadying from me.

      2. Mike, why do you think this site should be for Hispanics?

        I’m not saying it should be against them, but I am saying that there are many races in the Mission, and no one race here is more important than another.

        ML exists for all Mission residents, including the ones you apparently do not like.

        Finally, I see no problem with people outside the Mission writing about it. In fact, it’s good to have an outside view. That said, I believe that Lydia has said that she lives in the Mission.

  8. Oh my god. Now the image on ML is different, but the original has spread all over the internet. Clarion Alley and Jet Martinez in particular are more famous than ever, just as they intended all along, thanks to the Internet and social media tools whose architects they so despise. What a joke. The height of hypocrisy. You should all be ashamed.

    1. I took the time to read the complete e-mail communications between Ms Chávez and Rigo 23, John Jota Leaños, Isis Rodríguez, and Jet Martínez (link below).

      I really appreciated all of the responses from the artists. Right-on! I agree with you all. Gracias.

      In the e-mail exchange, Ms Chávez, however, comes off as completely clueless as to what is going on here and the many problems with it. It’s as if she lives in her own little world. She wrote, “I don’t know. Why not give it a try??”

      Well, they didn’t want to “give it a try” because they have principles that they stand by.
      Meanwhile, some other people stand for nothing but corporate/tech intere$t$.

      Ms Chávez, even wrote this, “We are trying to get Facebook and the others to join in…..if done right, this could be a plus about having tech in the Mission.”

      Why would you be trying to get data-mining Facebook involved? Have you never read anything about all the problems with that corporation?

      So all this tells me that she is for tech en el Distrito de la Misión y for the continued gentrification/evictions.

      I now see MissionLocal very differently than I did a week ago. and not at all in a positive way.

      1. Comments don’t seem to be posting in the correct place.
        My comment on February 8, 2014 at 5:15 am was not in response to Jo, yet that’s where it landed.

      2. RE “Why would you be trying to get data-mining Facebook involved? Have you never read anything about all the problems with that corporation?”

        Seriously? I’m sure you know the poster person for this campaigm, Jet Martinez, did a mural for Facebook. Is it fair to assume that you don’t have a problem with FB when artist’s get some of the money made from our data? And why aren’t any of the folks in the artisits’s camp addressing the hypocrisy that this issue appears to present? The silence is damning.

        I now see the artist’s in the Mission in a very different way. You pretend to be about the community but you’re really just a bunch of bullies out for yourselves.

        1. “Is it fair to assume that you don’t have a problem with FB when artist’s get some of the money made from our data?”

          NO, it is not at all fair to assume that, even though it seems that you did, erroneously so. I do indeed have a problem with that. I’m consistent, based on my principles.

          And if you had read the e-mail exchange I gave the link to, you would have read that Jet Martínez specifically said he was “Guilty” since he has worked with the tech industry in the past.

          You appear to be smearing an entire group of artists because of the actions of ONE person based on the past. That doesn’t seem very wise or intelligent to me.

          1. So, Mike, Jet was for tech before he was against tech? Very convenient.

            Here’s another idea. Why don’t you stick to painting art and not claim to be an expert in technology, politics, social sciences, transit systems and so on?

            We won’t lecture you on brushstrokes if you don’t try and lecture us on commuting options. Fair?

          2. @John

            You wrote:

            “Why don’t you stick to painting art…”

            I don’t paint art, John. I’m not a painting artist. I have no idea where you pulled that from. My point was solely about copyright law as regards to murals/street art.

          3. Mike, my point was rather that I feel the artists here are getting into areas of competence that are not related to their core skills and abilities.

  9. I really like the one that won the contest. I lived in Clarion Alley years back and the alley is dedicated to Juanita Rieloff, my aunt.

    I agree that the buses would look a lot more attractive if they have the work good artists on them… anything that brings art is good for the spirit.

    Fortunately, the judges have a good eye!

    1. I doubt that. Anyone with an operative brain can see that there are 3 big wheels at the bottom of that bus and space below it meaning it’s up off the street. I suspect most people wouldn’t even see the bus as they’re too busy hunched over squinting at that gadget in their hand, typing with their thumbs and continuing in their gadget addiction, which continues to help the tech-surveillance industry.

  10. Considering the amount of objection you received from the artists involved in the clarion mural project, i think you have done the neighborhood a disservice and delivered a serious slap in the face to those involved.

  11. mike and phil,

    I agree, and while you’re at it — sue the beastie boys, M&M & all those other evil samplers who’ve ruined music as we know it

    BTW: did Warhol get the rights from the Cambell’s Soup company? sue him too!!

    1. I get your point, but I would point out that copyright laws have become much, much stricter in recent years than what you’re talking about.

      In my opinion, the copyright laws of today are ridiculously extreme, depending upon the context. But they are what they are. In this context, the artist should be respected. Again, he’s asked that the image at the top of the page be removed. Be adult about it. and take it down. Honor his request.

        1. Phil Ross is correct. Let’s not muddy the issue. This is a clear case of fair use under federal copyright law. Anyone who says different is selling you something.

          1. “Fair Use

            Many people talk about fair use as if that makes it okay to copy someone else’s work. However, if someone takes you to court over a copyright issue, you have to admit to the infringement, and then claim it is “fair use.” The judge then makes a decision based upon the arguments. In other words, the first thing you do when you claim fair use is admit that you stole the content.

            If you are doing a parody, commentary, or educational information you may be able to claim fair use. However, fair use is nearly always a short excerpt from an article and it is usually attributed to the source. Also, if your use of the excerpt harms the commercial value of the work (along the lines of if they read your article they won’t need to read the original), then your claim of fair use may be nullified. In this sense, if you copy an image to your website this cannot be fair use, as there is no reason for your viewers to go to the owner’s site to see the image.

            When using someone else’s graphics or text on your web page, I would recommend getting permission. Like I said before, if you are sued for copyright violation, to claim fair use you must admit to the infringement, and then hope that the judge or jury agrees with your arguments. It’s faster and safer to just ask permission. And if you’re really only using a small portion, most people will be happy to grant you permission.”


          2. Apparently, you didn’t read what Phil Ross wrote up the page:

            “Many of the people making comments here (myself included) have pointed out that there are very specific copyrights that would be infringed upon if these artworks are used on the bus. These are not debatable, they are the law. Is ML willing to argue against these laws according to their own interpretation? If so, and if CAMP defends the rights they have, this will be decided by a judge, jury or other form of legal arbitrage. There are many issues that are being bundled into this argument, but I will point out again that it is this particular aspect of an artist’s rights being violated by a local business (ML) that have made many in the artistic community take notice of these actions.”

            Where did you get that he said this is a clear case of Fair Use under federal copyright law?

  12. Many of the people making comments here (myself included) have pointed out that there are very specific copyrights that would be infringed upon if these artworks are used on the bus. These are not debatable, they are the law. Is ML willing to argue against these laws according to their own interpretation? If so, and if CAMP defends the rights they have, this will be decided by a judge, jury or other form of legal arbitrage. There are many issues that are being bundled into this argument, but I will point out again that it is this particular aspect of an artist’s rights being violated by a local business (ML) that have made many in the artistic community take notice of these actions.

    1. Phil, that issue only becomes material if the design is employed and used. At this point it is just a contest, concept and hypothetical issue.

      I do not agree with your legal analysis but that doesn’t matter so much as your remarks are premature. The legality or not of these designs is something to be worked out between the corporations (if they wish to use this design) and the artist.

      Put another way – none of your beeswax.

      1. Jet has already stated:

        “I think you should retract this particular image and swap it for something that is not someone’s intellectual property and yet reflects the streets iof sf. I think this would be a good solution. I must repeat I Do not want my art to be involved in this project. I thought I was cool with mission local but I think that in this particular case you are steering it off course and not really looking out for the little people you claim to report about I would also like you to cease using images I have previously given you permission to use. Trust lost.”


        You apparently know nothing about copyright laws, and don’t bother to research it and speak proudly from a place of willful-ignorance. I’ve already given a link up above to copyright law regarding street art/murals.

        Here’s a link to copyright law on the web.

        Copyright on the Web
        Part 1: Being on the Web Doesn’t Make it Public Domain – Protect Your Rights

        “Copyright on the web seems to be a difficult concept for some people to understand. But it’s really simple: If you did not write or create the article, graphic, or data that you found, then you need permission from the owner before you can copy it. Remember, when you use someone’s graphic, HTML, or text without permission, you are stealing, and they can take action against you.”

        1. I don’t care what Jet thinks or wants. He stuck his art in a public place and now it’s part of the scene there.

          But since this is just a contest anyway, it’s moot. He needs to get off his high horse and maybe go out and spend some of the thousands he got from Facebook on having some fun.

          1. Two problems with Jet’s comments:

            1) He admits he originally gave permission to use his art. Now he wants to retrospectively change the deal and, quite rightly, he is being slapped down.

            2) He claims that ML exists for the “little people”. I see nothing in ML’s mission statement that it does anything other than serve all Mission residents, including those who work for corporations, love the shuttles, want more gentrification and probably find Jet to be egotistical here.

          2. A responsible website would immediately remove his artwork upon his request, even if he had previously given expressed written permission. I respect the request of the artist.

            The topic here—which seems a struggle for you to stay on—is copyright law and infringement. And he’s asked for that image at the top of this page to be removed, and it’s still there.

        2. I meant to add this…

          Ms. Chávez continues to ignore the specific request by the artist to take down the image at the top of this page (on that tech shuttle).

          In remedial language: Ms. Chávez does not have copyright permission from the artist to publish that image of his work on this site.

          1. John, please read more carefully:
            “that would be infringed upon if these artworks are used”
            I would also suggest you read up a bit more on the law.

  13. I read up above in a comment that the person who runs this website is a tenured professor of journalism. I would have never guessed that based on the amateurish and irresponsible way this issue is being handled by Ms. Chávez. It’s astounding. Apparently standards in Journalism have been lowered considerably. They don’t teach basic copyright law in journalism? How can they *not* teach copyright law in journalism? And pleading willful-ignorance is not an excuse or justification. It’s lame. I agree with someone up above, maybe a marketing position in a tech company would be a better job for Ms. Chávez.

    In the meanwhile, maybe this will help:

    Murals, Art Copyright, and VARA
    Yes, real artists paint on buildings and yes those artists own the copyright in the art.

  14. First, this conspiracy that they knew who painted the pink building and picked it just to spite the guy….im flexible but thats a stretch

    now ima go for another stretch if thats what we are in the market for…

    i find it funny that in an unofficial contest, for no real purpose purely conceptual, but obviously an avenue for jokes and critical commentary and now a great dialogue , the ¨artists¨ of the mission refused to participate…

    its funny because the artists claim to defend the community from the appropriators

    when we all know they are the first to sell out to their patrons….

    perfect example our buddy Jet

    what do yall think

  15. Wow, Mission Local really blew a lot of cred with this one.

    The basic premise was pro-gentro from the get-go:

    “As long as the buses are around, it seemed like a good idea to make them and their passengers less separate from the community.”

    This idea of making them less separate is only “good” to those who welcome the GBuses and accompanying evictions, and the material realization of the contest could only ever be possible with corporate complicity.

    The lack of accountability in ML’s dismissive responses to the impassioned reactions of artists on this thread only underscores where their sympathies apparently lie: with the corporations that sponsor the buses. Maybe that’s why the contest judges included a Danish tech entrepreneur, a New York-based NBC-staffer, and a computer science major from UC Berkeley. How Mission-local is that?

    Here’s a video by an artist who was born in the Mission:

    Welcome to the GBus

    The idea that artists should be grateful for the exposure generated when a media outlet promotes the corporate appropriation of our work directly in the face of our own clearly articulated objections only holds water in a market-driven neoliberal corporatist mindset. What does it say about real dignity and respect for artists? Unfortunately, this bottom-line marketing ideology is endemic to the tech elite influx that’s forcing artists out of our city—and leading to “local” publications promoting corporatism and gentrification, apparently with little to no accountability to the communities they purport to serve.

  16. Shame on you, Mission Local. You have gotten involved in a project that was a token way for the tech community to clean up its image before it has cleaned up its act. These companies need to improve their standing through actions to benefit citizens, not publicity stunts like working with you to hand out less than a month’s rent to a local artist for making them look like “a moving mirror of our urban landscape.” It is an urban landscape they are destroying.

    I am an artist from Honduras now based in San Francisco. I used to live in the mission but left because of the price of housing. I have nothing to do with the Clarion Alley Mural Project but I stand by them completely.

  17. Wow, is MOVE ON the new catch phrase for the entitled of San francisco.

    Maybe all the new (not all billionaires) Mission residents, who can’t understand or simply don’t care about the gentrification problem in the Mission should wear “MOVE ON” t-shirts.

    This way on a typical Saturday on Valencia St or other enclave, where these people spend their buckets of disposable income, we will see a true representation of their politics.

    I applaud the people reaching out from the tech community, but I truly believe they are truly a t i n y minority.

    1. “Wow, is MOVE ON the new catch phrase for the entitled of San francisco.”

      Tiresome and predictable, isn’t it?

      That along with “Move to Oakland.” I’ve seen that 100s of times on sites.

      Those are the two main catch phrases from the very limited repertoire used by the corporatist shills (pro-gentrification trolls).

      1. So someone who doesn’t like gentrification is an advocate for social and economic justice?

        And someone who supports it is a troll?

        How convenient. And prejudicial.

  18. Jet Martinez was an artist in residency at Facebook for two weeks when they commissioned him to paint them a mural.

    I’m curious to know if he took one of their busses to their offices. The people who signed his paycheck certainly did.

    It’s been mentioned elsewhere in the comments that lots of folks, including myself, would never have heard of Jet Martinez if not for Mission Local. So this is a little like a celebrity who bemoans their lack of anonymity.

    He made art for the public to see, and now, not only are way more people seeing it as a result of this post, but his art is creating important debate on issues like whether public art can in fact be owned, and the cultural, economic and demographic changes in the Mission as a result of tech. If Jet Martinez is a civic minded artist, I’d think he’d be thrilled.

  19. The real point for Clarion Alley Mural Project (CAMP) and the artists involved here is one of respect – on a number of levels:

    1) Several artists from CAMP were engaged in an exchange with Mission Local’s Editor-In-Chief Lydia Chavez during the initial promotion of this contest (see Each of us (three are core organizers for CAMP) expressed our desire to not be included in any way in this contest and articulated why we do not support it – additionally one of the artists (Jet Martinez) was the one who painted Community Thrift. Therefore, the selected entry really seems like the choice was based on spite and retaliation for that expression; and

    2) If the idea here is to build community, then the process was anything but that, and rather more about creating greater divides since neither Clarion Alley Mural Project or Community Thrift were approached to weigh in on the winning selection and it was already known that we were opposed to the contest in general. That’s not about community or respect – it’s more about contemporary colonialism and the elite caste system that these private transportation services have created – now, also reflected in Mission Local’s contest and process for selection.

    1. That building is part of the street. The fact that you painted it does not mean that you own it, or the sole rights to represent it.

      It would have been better if you had entered the contest in good faith rather than politicizing it. But given that you willingly gave up that opportunity, then on what reasonable basis can you now complain.

      You should be flattered, insofar as your murals were a factor in the winning entry being seen as successful. It was a very good entry and it is petty to accuse ML of choosing that entry out of “spite”. The only spite that I am seeing here is from CAMP. Lighten up – it’s only a contest and only $500.

      1. John,
        Do you spend your entire day/week/month/year just responding to the comments section of Mission Local? … are there other publications that you’re doing this with? Truly curious because you’re all over these comments pages. Are you a shut-in? Is the only contact you have with the outside world?

        1. Would you be making that observation if I had agreed with your position?

          I’m sorry that you cannot take criticism but seeking to discredit another to avoid losing a debate doesn’t seem appropriate.

          1. Yeah. I am too. What’s your story, John? Does your employer know how much time you waste rebutting everybody (or supporting them, should they agree with you) on ML?
            It borders on obsessive/compulsive behavior.

          2. John is a mission landlord who bought his first property at age 26. He claims to have housed over 100 tenants and that now he mostly sells Mission buildings and does short term Mission leases to tourists and corporatists. How do I know all this? Oddly I learned all of this from his ML posts, so he is not shy.

            Hope this context helps to understand his monothematic everpresence.

  20. I’m sorry, but this is all so out of hand.

    I absolutely share many of the artists’ frustrations (being an artist in San Francisco, myself, but of a far less profitable type,) however they are coming off as uncompromising, belligerent, and disrespectful themselves. Cursing, typing in all caps, foaming at the mouth… I think it’s a horrible way to try and show somebody that what he or she did is potentially harmful to the community. I don’t like the art contest much, but that’s because it doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. Things that I don’t really care for (of which there are many) I don’t often come back to or read about.

    The more I read the email exchanges the more I sympathize with Mission Local, not the artists one bit. I can see how the tech people look down at us and consider us less intelligent and not worth living with… we respond so desperately, violently, and disproportionally, and those with voices see it as a strength to their cause. They have the power to force us all out with their money… and why wouldn’t they? We have no means to stop them, and they really really dislike us. They might even hate us almost as much as “we hate them,” which is unprecedented in social movements which preached love and compromise. Other social (race, gender) causes had a sense of seriousness and defense of rights, not an offense, looking for fights. People have bad ideas, so be it, but roasting folks who aren’t even the enemy and feeling good about it is a bit shameful.

    I moved to San Francisco for the art, and being an artist myself am of course not able to live in the hip communities like the mission. I have to take buses to the mission to see it and participate in it. I spend time admiring what folks have accomplished and then commute all the way back home to the non-hip neighborhood that I live in. Then the artists do this (not all, of course, just a vocal few) and it makes me wonder… is it worth struggling to stay in San Francisco to be around people who are so cruel to others?

    Social justice movements are based on love, compromise, and humanity. Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta were being bullied, and how did they respond? They responded with tough love. They defended rights and told others to join them. They took insults and responded with dignity. It is really difficult for me to imagine them ever victimizing a journalist (who should be your best friend in a movement, by the way) and looking for fights on little things that do not matter at all.

    Tech companies are bullying us, and they will always be better at it than we are to them. Bullying is the surest way to expedite the process, and those of us with less prominent voices are along for the dangerous ride the rest of you in the art community are taking us on.

    It’s true, soon I won’t even be able to live in the uncool neighborhoods, and you prominent artists won’t be able to live even in the cool ones, and I don’t see a reason for it to stop.

    The point of art is to humanize, not capitalize. Don’t pretend that we as artists provide a service that everybody should be ashamed should they not be grateful for it. Art isn’t an end, it’s a mean. It’s a symbol of what it means to be a human, and right now this is all very un-human.

    Lydia has come off as nothing but a super professional, as far as I can tell, who was unfortunate enough to have to deal with this. The winner of the contest submitted to a stupid contest worth $500, and spent a couple minutes making an entry. Who cares? Why does it matter? People get paid to write music for stupid things that I don’t get to all the time. It’s such a little deal it is ridiculous.

    Do you know who can help? The government, with of course the pressure from the media. Make them stop dragging their feet to tax businesses that make money (why Twitter pays less taxes than me I have no idea). Tell them to charge buses more than $1 a day to use stops.

    Stop criminalizing the media, and stop criminalizing the locals who are necessary for enjoying your art. It makes others, like me, not sympathize with your cause one bit. Thank you, Megan, for posting the whole email exchange. If you had not done that then for a minute I may have thought that ML was actually being mean, but thankfully you did the unethical thing that they were bound not to do, and it was very helpful in making me realize who is truly uncompromising here.

    1. “Lydia has come off as nothing but a super professional”

      A super professional what?

      One word is missing there.

      The word: Corporatist. That goes at the very end.

      There’s nothing “mission local” about corporatist and corporatism. Corporatists and corporatism are in the Financial District.

      She/They really should change the name of this site to what their real intentions are and proceed on to shill for tech companies and the continued gentrification/evictions. Stop pretending to be something you’re not.

      1. Wrong, Mike, there is nothing about ML that is either for or against big business. It’s a news site and it’s job is to report the news in a broad and objective way. and not to pick one side of a battle and pretend the other side doesn’t exist.

        Many residents of the Mission are employed by corporations and the money their earn gets spent here on non-corporate businesses.

        Try an open mind. ML does.

  21. Hey Mission Local, how about you post a gallery of all the entries? And let the people who allow you to exist from your advertising see others ideas about the contest.

    In short, you have no real vested interest in this community or your readers…and it shows again and again.

    1. The entries have all been shown on ML before. Do a little research.

      The contest was not a democracy. The judges were carefully chosen and they did their job as well as they could. The fact that you personally may prefer some other entry is irrelevant.

      You speak for yourself and not for all ML readers. But in the end this is a lousy $500 and doesn’t matter. Move on.

  22. Isn’t this contest illegal because the “choices” that Lydia Chávez says she stands by have been based on copyright violations/infringement? It seems to me that alone would void the contest. Copyright law violations are very serious and the copyright laws have become even more stringent in recent years in the US. Google Street View is copyright protected. It’s not in the Public Domain, so one must get permission from Google to use any images from it anywhere. Even if an artist failed to get permission from Google, the website is responsible and required to get permission from Google in order to use it on their site.

    Having run a website in the past, I can’t conceive of using the work of any artists without their expressed, written permission. And if they gave me said permission and did not like the outcome/results of how their work was used and asked me to remove their work, I would gladly do so immediately. In other words, It sounds like to me that MissionLocal does not understand copyright law. How can one run a website and not know basic copyright laws? That’s incredible. I also would not write this non-responsive corporate BS to an artist who has asked their work to be removed:

    “Jet: Great debate. I stand by the contest and our choice. I welcome continuing the conversation.”—-Lydia Chávez

    So this is all about “debating” and “continuing the conversation?” The artist asked you to remove his work and he added, “Trust Lost.” Considering copyright laws have been violated, I think there’s much more to it than “debating” and “conversation.”

    This site seems to be losing itself (or changing) and becoming corporate—it’s time someone said that—as opposed to being for the average person the site pretends to serve en el Distrito de la Misión. For example, do you not realize you are helping corporate Google make even more money with the Google ads on this site? Why would this site want to help Google make any money which only promotes continued gentrification and evictions. Why would this site want to have anything to do with Google? I don’t even use their search engine anymore. I use DuckDuckGo (search anonymously.) This is the message I get from MissionLocal: “We write about the corporate tech shuttles, but we hope you click on the corporate Google ads to help make more money for corporate Google (they already have billion$) and a little for us.”

    1. If an artist chooses to put his art in a public place, then it becomes part of the streetscape. If another artist then wishes to represent that streetscape, then it would be dishonest to somehow edit out that art or any other part of the vista.

      If I paint the outside of my house purple and then an artist paints my street including my purple exterior, I cannot reasonably complain that my house is represented.

      If I really do not wish to have my art represented in that way, I should make the work private. And if I decline to enter a contest, I cannot later reasonably whine that an image of my public art appears in another entry which is representing the streetscape that I freely chose to place my image for public consumption.

      1. John,

        Again, this is not about people whining about not entering a contest, or the prize money. It is about Mission Local choosing to help camouflage symbols of gentrification with images of the very community it is displacing.

        Comparing your hypothetical purple house to a work of art that someone made for public consumption, not for private use by Genentech buses or any other forum, I think tries to devalue the work of the artist. What if it was one of Juana Alicia’s murals, or the murals at the Women’s Building? Would we still be having the same conversation?

        I understand that people are coming down hard on Mission Local. People trust Mission Local to cover the news and to provide a balanced view. That trust is damaged when Mission Local agrees to participate in window dressing a prominent symbol of problems faced by the community it is reporting on. Dismissing that as whining or sour grapes does nothing to repair that trust.

        Thank you

        1. Not everyone on the community see commuter buses as “symbols of gentrification”. Some of us see them as symbols of success and prosperity.

          ML must appeal to all of our community and not just one political faction and ideological viewpoint.

          Your comments aren’t really criticizing the winning entry. They are criticizing ML for holding the contest at all. you think ML should be advocates for a controversial political end, rather than acting as a servant of the community reflecting all of it’s diverse views.

      2. “If an artist chooses to put his art in a public place, then it becomes part of the streetscape.”

        Not according to copyright law. It’s still copyright protected. Any image placed anywhere is automatically copyright protected, even if the author does not officially/legally file for copyright protection.

        Some murals even have the copyright symbol on them at the bottom just for extra copyright protection. About 3 years ago I tried to use a streetscape image of a mural on my website. I contacted the artists for permission and they said “No, sorry.” They didn’t want it used on any websites.

        And the same goes for female artists, since you referred to “his art.” His/her would be better gender-neutral language.

  23. Dear Mission Local,

    Mission Local approving the “winning” graphic for this contest knowing that the Jet, the artist who painted the murals in that graphic, refused to have his images used for that purpose is unacceptable and disappointing. Lydia’s response the artists in the publicized email exchange and in this forum have been condescending and haughty, implying that if we could see the art in this project, if we were as enlightened as you, we would see that this is harmless and all about making something that is functional into something beautiful.

    I hope Mission Local is present enough to know that it is not just about art. This is about San Francisco being irreparably changed by highly paid workers who pay top dollar for housing, regardless that people with established communities and networks already live there. This is about a fleet of unregulated buses breaking the law every day catering to these workers while not willingly paying their fare share, while the rest of us pay $80 a month and wait twice as long for a crowded bus. This is about San Francisco becoming a City where if you don’t earn at least $70,000 a year, the City does not care where or how you live. Tech buses are a symptom of something much bigger, but they are a clear visual of the type of preference and privilege being given to people with lots of money, while the rest of us get shafted.

    Slapping some art on the buses to make them more “palatable” does nothing to address the real problem of displacement and class privilege. The real kick in the ovaries is that you chose the image of Community Thrift and Clarion Alley, landmarks that represent the San Francisco culture drawing these highly paid workers here. It is also the San Francisco that is being ripped from every person that is evicted because their apartment is close to a tech bus stop or because of an Ellis Act speculator. It is the San Francisco that we are loosing because of the high rents shutting down small businesses and evicting residents, rents egged on by the high priced workers riding these buses rolling down the street, with tinted windows, now wrapped in images of the community they are not willing to engage.

    People calling you out are not whiners, or sour grapes, or party poopers who don’t know art when they see it. We are people who don’t appreciate images of our community being co-opted for the purpose of dressing up unregulated privilege.

    Thank you.

    1. Dear Lupe, thank you for writing this. I’m imagining you shouting it through a megaphone as you stand atop a blockaded double-decker google bus wrapped in appropriated Mission history. As you hit the last nail on the head, we’ll have peeled off the layers that can only be claimed by the people and communities that made them.

      please keep writing & speaking publicly.
      much respect,

  24. The laws that support copyright, artists’ rights, and creative rights(stronger here in California than most other places in the US) will most likely see this as unfair usage of the artwork in Clarion Alley, particularly if there is a record of them NOT agreeing to permissions for reproduction by another party. It does not make it OK to reproduce it because it appears on StreetView. Lawyer up ML, because there is a good case against you if you pursue this.

    1. Good lord, what exactly do you people think ML is trying to “pursue?” This is a freakin’ blog post, not a business proposal. The bus bearing this image does not exist, and almost certainly never will. The only thing ML wanted to do is foster a rich exchange of ideas. Mission accomplished.

      By the way, I just checked out Jet’s website and his work is fantastic. He’s obviously a very talented artist. However, I’d never heard of him until this contest hubbub began, and I bet many of the other commenters are just learning about him now too. So…regardless of your political beliefs or your taste in art, you have to acknowledge that moments like this are good for art and good for artists.

      1. According to Mission Local’s post, they will support the winning entry as much as possible towards actually being put on tech buses. So the idea of it being a conjecture or fiction could change at any moment.

      2. “You people” thinks that the law is pretty clear about “what is good for art and good for artists”, opinions about exposure to audience will not change legal opinions.

      3. It’s an assumption that artists want this type of headache as “exposure.” There are way more other things to spend time on, and this, unfortunately, shouldn’t be one of them.

        1. Phil and Steph, I agree with the issue of ML failing to provide the voice of enlightened journalism and instead falling into this pit of confusion, but in court there are questions that I don’t think would support the defense of the muralists, upsetting as that idea may be.

          Can you digitally reproduce the heart of something? Does google street view reproduce the essence of graffiti art in a virtual world? If we recreated Clarion alley in Second life would the artists get royalties on any money exchanged in its production?

          Regarding IPR I think that in a court it would be successfully argued that the image proposed by Diamond was free and fair use because it does not try to “supersede the object” (the original Jet Martinez mural or any of those in Clarion) for reasons of personal profit. Furthermore, it is recontextualized and only a portion of the work was reproduced as opposed to the entirety. More importantly, the spirit of the original isn’t what is being reproduced either. Lastly in copyright law, this reproduction makes zero impact on the value of the original piece or the career of Jet. Essentially, this work is about the medium of the digital today. It is not the artist shooting photos of Jet’s mural and reproducing his work on the bus in an attempt to reproduce the presence, allure and dignity that his work bestows upon the Mission (like all the work of CAMP), but rather to expose a point of view of uncompassionate superficiality brought by new peoples in an old place.

          But the IPR isn’t important as I don’t see any lawsuits on the horizon. What is important is the question of if the medium is the message. I never like to quote McLuhan, but in this case it’s appropriate. The medium is not to produce camouflage, in the sense of actually hiding or fitting in, but rather to decorate the bus with the way that the tech community unfortunately perceives the mission: as a surface easily reproduced and valued at nothing more than a digital overlay. Like a Photoshop file with it’s many layers, the new influx of wealth doesn’t see the history of struggle and oppression, the liberation and exhalation, celebration and struggle that is deep in the bones of the mission and instead sees it only as one would in Google street view – as surface. It is as though the Mission to this contemporary influx isn’t experienced first hand but via a mediated google-glass perspective. In this way this choice of medium I believe is a brilliant decision by Diamond. She just says that this bus is wrapped in a REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY AS SEEN IN THE EYES OF GOOGLE. It is simulacra not camouflage. In this way it is acting like a mirror and reflecting the superficiality by which tech companies unfortunately view our community.

          I think we all are now affected by “Silicosis” as Stephanie Syjuco has so nicely coined today. Below is the link to google’s legal page where it outlines the law around use of these images. I think its egregious, and unfortunate that the winning selection happened to use an image of work by someone who explicitly asked to be left out of the project, but then again it’s not really using his work, but a cheap simulacra representation of it and that is why it is bothersome; because the Mission is becoming a digitized copy of an original.

          Lastly, @Rigo23, if the tech people offered me $50,000 to design decorations of their fleet, I would take it and see what I could get away with. But, I’d get the cash up front and only propose wild ideas until they fired me.

          On Fair Use:

          On legal use of Google Maps in reproduction:

    2. Actually public murals are copyrighted – though the issue with pursuing action is legal fees. But, if murals are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office – which Clarion Alley Mural Project’s (CAMP) are – then legal fees are guaranteed.

      CAMP is happy to share our work with folks for non-commercial purposes – it is public. However we do have an attorney and we pursue those who use our murals for commercial, for-profit endeavors.

      1. So if I wanted to paint the San Francisco skyline, and the architect of the Pyramid said that I could not represent his work in any art, then according to you I’d have to remove the Pyramid from my image?

        And instead show something that isn’t there? You think art is about dishonesty and misrepresentation, rather than reality?

  25. Shame, and poor judgement on behalf of Mission Local for awarding the pittance called a prize for appropriated artwork of artists who explicitly denied offers to be involved with the project when courted. And, further, for not understanding the social implications of this image on this bus.

  26. Reality Check. I know it seems like that is what ‘PUBLIC ART’ is, but you are misinformed.

    Branding a Genentech bus with Mission murals is nothing to be grateful for.

    1. Jonathan Checking Reality Checks: I know it seems like that is what “branding a Genentech bus with Mission murals is,” but you are misinformed. Maybe you missed the point of the contest, the part about why the winning design was chosen, and the willingness of Genentech (and possibly others) to hire local artists to help bridge the gap between the people who ride these anonymous buses and the community.Nothing to do with branding.

      1. Yes, it seems that some factions resent tech and so tech, even though they could ignore that, actually try reaching out to those factions to mend fences through art and dialog

        And those factions then get all frumpy and sulky and don’t want to play. Which makes them look like the problem here, and not the companies who hire Mission residents.

  27. Seriously tone deaf on the part of Mission Local and even more so from the artist. This is in all likelihood a violation of artist copyright. Multiple cases in case law and in recent settlements on similar issues. Seriously though — that issue aside, pretty shockingly disrespectful to the artists. They have worked hard to be part of a great history of Mission muralism and the community and deserve better. Elinor, I’m sure you are a talented artist, I’d urge you to retract your piece that relies on the work of people who believe this project is bad for the Mission.

    1. On a positive note, it’s sufficiently murky to generate abundant legal fees, and that’s good for the GNP.

  28. Let’s remember that the art that appears on the thrift store and in Clarion Alley is PUBLIC ART. It is meant to be seen, talked about and enjoyed by a wide range of people who happen to stumble upon it or seek it out, and who might not ever be exposed to it if it only appeared in an art gallery or museum. It is art on a building, on a street, in a public space. There is no guard charging admission to see it or photograph it. It is included in a Google Street View of the block because it is on the street!! It is ridiculous for the artists who painted the thrift store and the Clarion Alley murals to think that any artwork has been “stolen” or “used” here, or that they have been disrespected by Mission Local in any way. Mission Local (and the winning designer) have not “ripped off” any art from any of these artists. These artists chose not to submit designs of their own to the contest, and their decisions were respected. Some of the comments here make it sound as if the winning designer and ML went ahead and stole/published their work after the artists told them not to. Didn’t they create these murals for the public to enjoy? Maybe their work would be better suited for the white walls of a gallery if they are seeking specific representation and such control? Isn’t public art about making art that is easily accessible to all? It would be cause for concern if the winning entry had plastered the bus with a design directly copied from one of these artists. The winning design is simply a street view of a street in the Mission that happens to feature a lot of public art (which coincidentally, and unintentionally, contains work by some of the artists who are upset.) Like the winning designer mentions in her comment, she uses a Google Street View in her design, and this is something she would have to discuss with Google (not the artists, as they do not own Google Street View) IF, and only if one of the tech companies agreed to hire her to use her design on one of their buses (for those who have not yet realized or read the contest rules or FAQ’s, this is not an actual bus, and the winning design is not guaranteed a spot on one of the actual buses.) Among other things, the design draws attention to the neighborhood’s long and important history of murals. Rather than complaining that their PUBLIC ART is at the center of meaningful conversations (by a diverse group of people) about the past, present and future of our neighborhood and its art and culture, let’s be grateful to ML for providing such a creative and engaging platform. Let’s use this opportunity to talk about how we can coexist peacefully. It begins by not accusing people of stealing what is not ours to begin with, but by sharing each other’s gifts in hopes of creating a better future together. Let’s open our eyes, minds and hearts.

    1. It’s not such a simple legal question.

      Let’s say somebody photographs you on a public sidewalk.

      Could he than use your face without permission in his Hair Club for Men TV commercial?

      1. Dear nutrisystem,

        As a representative of the Nutrisystem corporation, I am writing to inform you that you are in violation of our trademark, and I hereby I demand that you immediately cease and desist all activities using the name nutrisystem. Your posts display a flagrant disregard for the clearly-stated desires of the Nutrisytem company and our advertising agency.

        If you fail to remove your posts within 24 hours, I will have no choice but to initiate legal action against you.

        Oh…wait…no…I see. You’re just some random guy using the name nutrisystem as a sort of jokey alias. You mean no harm, and you’re not trying to make any money by appropriating our brand identity, and you’re not using it slanderously. Oh, OK. Sorry. Go ahead.

    2. Actually public murals are copyrighted – though the issue with pursuing action is legal fees. But, if murals are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office – which Clarion Alley Mural Project’s (CAMP) are – then legal fees are guaranteed.

      CAMP is happy to share our work with folks for non-commercial purposes – it is public. However we do have an attorney and we pursue those who use our murals for commercial, for-profit endeavors.

      1. “…we do have an attorney and we pursue those who use our murals for commercial, for-profit endeavors.”

        — which, very clearly, this is not. How could this be construed as a commerical, for-profit endeavor? This is a freaking art project. You’re so far off-base and paranoid — and disrespectful of other artists — it’s simply incredible.

        (Also, the fact that the murals are barely visible in this photo should make your attorney giggle before walking away, shaking his/her head at your pettiness.)

        1. Missionite – CAMP has never claimed in any of these discussion threads regarding this contest that we are going to take legal action.

          We posted this explanation of copyright only to convey to the many folks here who don’t understand it, that this is in fact the law and in cases in which CAMP does find merit of infringement, we do take action.

  29. Wow. This coming Monday my Art 433 Community Mural Painting, History & Technology class at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan will be discussing this issue and its political contradictions. This past Monday we looked at S.F. murals ’70s-’90s (inc. my own ’80s ones) and Jacoby’s 2009 book on Mission street art. Too bad Elinor obviously didn’t know of the long history of corporations using community mural images thoughtlessly. Nor the way the buses now symbolize gentrification pushing long-time residents out of the area.

    1. I would love to hear the outcome of this class discussion Mike, especially in light of the research done on the history you are citing. Please share any resources as you find them.

  30. Mission Local has created a controversial contest and ML will have to own that.

    If the bus was to ever be cloaked by the controversial image, it will just be a lightning rod if it ever rolled in the the Mission. Guaranteed!!

    So, cloak it and park it forever in dark alley in Silicon Valley!!

  31. So using a picture from Google maps makes someone an artist? Hilarious. These techie lovers have got as big of ego as those they worship. And then they play all innocent, what, the buses have helped destroy the Mission? Artist…hilarious.

  32. Judgements on what is “good art” or “bad art” — and if Mission Local has chosen from either of these categories — is besides the point here. These are red herring questions. The angry responses to the final winning entry are coming from artists who have inadvertently found depictions of their work emblazoned on a proposal for a tech bus. Over two months ago these very same artists had had explicit email conversations with Mission Local editor Lydia Chavez voicing their objections to participate and refused to submit to the contest, feeling so strongly about it that they called for it’s retraction as a contest (read the link to the email correspondence via Megan Wilson). When today’s winner was announced, the artists had no idea that images that used their works had been chosen by Elinor Diamond. The artists affiliated with Clarion Alley Mural Project and Community Thrift (Megan Wilson, John Jota Leanos, Jet Martinez, and Rigo23) are not expressing “sour grapes” or jealousy over the winning entry. They simply don’t want their organization and the images that they are responsible for producing to appear to be advocating or endorsing either the contest or the notion that they have collaborated with a corporation. These are respected artists and community members and they are shocked and upset to have been drawn into this.

    Anger at Elinor Diamond, and any attacks on her submission as being “bad art” is totally missplaced. She is being straightforward in her intentions for the work and has said so. Personal attacks and harsh judgement is being lobbed on her unfairly. The real finger should be pointed at Mission Local for attempting to hide behind a smokescreen of the problem being “between Google and Jet” instead of realizing that by choosing to be a journalism platform that purports to represent the Mission community, they are evidencing a stark naivete about what is angering artists who have spent decades investing in the neighborhood and an insensitivity to long-time members of the community — the very creative constituents they sought to reach out to and build bridges with this contest. I am deeply saddened by this chain of events because it feels ML has created more alienation than ever.

  33. Dear Lydia and Mission Local Staff,

    I think there is a lot of confusion as to what this really means. Please clear up a few things for the readers…

    Is an actual bus-owning company involved at all in this process? Or is this contest entirely by and for Mission Local just for kicks?

    Is the $500 prize coming from Mission Local or a tech company?

    Is it likely that this image be placed on one or more buses?

    Also, your simulated image of the painted bus looks so realistic (nice work) that many people believe this really exists.

  34. Really?!?! Shame on you Misson Local. Clearly you are stealing the artwork of the muralist who created those designs, namely Jet Martinez, and you KNEW that. It’s gross that you would do this in the first place, but to do it with intent? This is not about Elinor, this is about Lydia. You need to rethink this, Lydia.

    1. Whoa. That is an astonishingly ignorant accusation. This isn’t even remotely “stealing” and even the sleaziest lawyer would find this whole discussion hilarious. And without a doubt, Lydia’s is the sanest, most articulate and most inclusive voice in this discussion.

      1. Now you want me to use Google to learn about copyright law? Does that seem a tad hypocritical to you? Frankly I already know all about the ways in which selfish artists try to prevent other artists from using their ideas to create other ideas, and there’s simply no case here.

        Anyway, maybe if enough San Franciscans can band together to form a giant mass of morons of such staggering lameness that the techies would sooner live in Oakland than here, then the beloved Mission will remain a crime-ridden, shit-strewn refuge for addicts and hipsters getting their various fixes in doorways of vacant storefronts. Yay!!! Maybe I’ll even move away myself after supporting this community for the last 10 years.

      2. Now you’re asking us to use Google to learn why we should hate Google? As John has pointed out, your cognitive dissonance is striking.

        Anyway, if you really understand Fair Use, you know that this is *clearly* Fair Use. If someone actually painted it on the side of a bus, that might be another story. But so far, there’s no case here.

  35. Wow. What a group of self-righteous tools. First of all, this is not an actual photo of an actual bus. This is a concept.

    Secondly, this is not a “glad hand” to the techies. It’s an attempt to put something thought-provoking and aesthetically pleasing on the side of an otherwise big white bus that’s going to continue driving through our neighborhood no matter what we do. If nothing else, it’d remind people in Noe Valley and Pac Heights and the Marina (where these buses also run) that the Mission is the true beating heart of SF.

    Thirdly, how many of you douchebags who think this is “disgusting” or “disrespectful” would say the same thing about Paul’s Boutique or any other piece of music that appropriated someone else’s art (including protest art) to create something new and jarring, while funneling money to three rich white kids and EMI Records, Inc.???

    True artists understand that an artist’s work is never entirely his own; it also belongs to his audience. Re-appropriation of art is inevitable and wonderful. Art begets art. Depending on the beholder, this piece of art is every bit as subversive and innocuous and beautiful and hideous and polarizing and banal as anything any other artist has ever created. A giant booger wiped on the side of this bus would be no better or worse.

    Lastly, how can you continue to malign the “techies” while using the technology they’ve created to have this discussion!? If you really want to protest the techies, get the fuck offline. And if you want to get rich yourself, stop thinking about who you should sue, and start learning how to write code.

    1. I agree, Andrew, I am stunned by the sour grapes and jealousy that is being dumped on the winner and on ML.

      The rest of the nation laughs at SF because we are perceived as a bunch of tribal, self-absorbed Peter Pan’s and this self-pity party of failed artists and losing entries fits right into that stereotype.

      Bunch of whiners. It’s how you behave in defeat that defines character and i am not seeing much here.

      1. Also, have you really read what happened according to the email correspondence link? The artists who are upset did not “fail” in their attempt to enter the contest. They wanted NOTHING TO DO with it and explicitly stated that to the editor months ago. Please stop your name-calling, it lowers the ability of your comments to sound lucid.

        1. Who cares if those artists didn’t want to enter the contest? They are free to not enter or not, but they are not free to whine that a piece of their art that they left in a public place is represented in an image of that public place.

          They are getting free publicity. What is that worth?

    2. In my understanding, the “techies” you refer to are not responsible for the entire internet in general, which was sort of invented quite a while ago, so it should be OK to stay online and keep using it as a means of communication. To take issue with what is happening with local politics in San Francisco is not to want to become a Luddite. No one who is critiquing this said they wanted to become rich, so they don’t have to go back to school to learn to code. Your last paragraph makes some wild leaps of logic as to what people are upset about.

      1. I agree with you Stephanie. I’m mystified that people are directing their anger at the buses, the tech companies, the “techies” or — most bizarrely of all — this artist, when they *should* be directing their anger at their government for failing to ensure stagnation in the local economy, or at Mother Nature for creating such a desirable place to live.

        Do you use Twitter? Do you use Yahoo email? Do you use Google Maps? Do you use an iPhone or an Android phone? If so, you should reconsider your anger at the “techies.”

        And my comment about getting rich was purely directed at those threatening to sue over this silliness.

        1. I feel like you are saying the equivalent of “America, love it or leave it,” only replacing it with gadget particulars. I stand by my view that one does not have to wholeheartedly prescribe to a place’s politics or powers-that-be in order to love it, critique it, and keep building on it to better reflect its constituents.

          1. I don’t see anyone being “critical of tech companies (sic) policies.” I only see people spouting invective against techies, ML, Lydia Chavez and other innocents.

    3. “If you really want to protest the techies, get the fuck offline.”

      LOL. Well that’s a bit extreme and simplistic. It’s very black and white thinking. One should not get offline; the internet is a very good thing. What people should be getting off of is not the internet, but rather these addictive gadgets, useless apps and “social media networks.” There’s nothing “social” about typing with one’s thumbs on a gadget squinting at a small screen in one’s hand. The techies are making money off of gadgets and apps. And as long as no one clicks on the Google ads on this site, no money is made there for Google.

      The issue is gentrification and evictions. These tech employees shoving out the poor and making the cost of living in San Francisco extremely high.

      1. Talk about simplistic, black-and-white thinking! Sure, some “techies” are making frivolous stuff…but many of the people on those buses are building things of immense value to the world. The fact is, the Internet that you describe as a “very good thing” simply would not exist without those companies. They make a helluva lot more than the “apps and gadgets” you so readily dismiss, and you know it.

        I’m not endorsing gentrification or evictions, but for chrissake, the tech employees are not “shoving out the poor.” They’re simply choosing to live in a highly desirable city near their workplace. That’s their prerogative in a free society. If you want to stop gentrification and evictions, you can either run for office and try to change public policy, or you can work to make San Francisco LESS desirable. Take a dump on a sidewalk or something. But don’t attack innocent, hard-working people.

        1. The main utility of the internet (e.g. search, email, blogs, maps) was built long ago by a small number of people.

          What’s happening now at the “campuses” those buses go to is the construction of a candy-coated, for-profit Big Brother.

          The server farms of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Apple etc. each constitute an OMNIPRESENCE with permanent , instantaneous and infallible memory, which may indeed be “of immense value to the world”…. but maybe not in a good way.

          1. Well, that’s just crazy talk. Do you really want to go back to using the Internet (and especially the maps!) “built long ago by a small number of people?” You think there’s been no new utility since then? Gimme a break.

            What disparaging things would you say of the “techies” at Kiva or Kickstarter? What do you make of the role of Twitter in facilitating the Arab Spring? What about the 150+ lives saved after the Haiti earthquake thanks entirely to Google’s person finder?

          2. Seriously? You’re using the “Arab Spring” as an example of how Web 2.0 is making the world a better place? Egypt and Syria are bloodbaths, with Libya and Tunisia not far behind.

            And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the counterrevolution in Egypt (the army) is using social media data to find, arrest and torture their political opponents.

            In the early days of the Arab Spring there was nonstop rejoicing in the US media about Twitter facilitating these uprisings. Now, a couple of years later, those nations are in a hideous state of anarchy, and we don’t hear that anymore!

          3. Using the internet to criticize the internet is a fascinating exercize in cognitive dissonance.

            Why don’t you protest Google, Twitter etc. by, say, not using them?

          4. Twitter played a key role in the trashing of 4 countries, so Ed Lee gave them a tax break.

            They need a feel-good art thingy.

    1. Yes Tuffy, many people found Duchamp’s ready mades lazy. The entry seemed to me ingenious and layered. It was not dependent on any one Street View, it was dependent on the idea of using Google Street view as art, as mirror as – in some who liked it – a critical comment on the pervasiveness of Google Earth. To be honest, I didn’t realize that Jet was responsible for the Community Thrift’s front. My ignorance. I don’t think it would have mattered. I liked the ethic that the store evokes and I didn’t think that the artist owned Google Street View, but hey, that would be between Google and Jet.
      The buses move through the Mission and different street views would trigger new conversations. But again, everyone has a point of view. Attacking art and artists is nothing new. I was happy to get as many entries as we did and I thought the vast majority ingenious in their own way.

      1. Nicely put. It reflects how everyone sees these buses as something different and, as we often see on these pages, how people see what they want to see. The entry has whimsy and cleverness.

        And yet, artists are entitled to be petulant. Isn’t that what drives their creativity? Or something like that.

        1. wow, just WOW you guys.. are you serious???? The range of hostility coming from “reporters” from this so called info-site, is so amazing to me.. I’m personally good friends with most of the artists involved in Clarion, and have been an active participant for years.. I can’t believe this is actually happening..

          so let me get this straight:
          “artist” who went to SFAI, has a family, and lives in mission, while making frocks, uses “google earth” image,
          of a thrift store….A THRIFT STORE, that a certain percentage of proceeds go to charity from to then be placed on the side of a COMMUTER BUS that goes to where all the money’s at…. hmm, yea, that sounds really cool. Artistically really just amazing.. esp. the art on the buildings and in the alley… that’s great the rich like art, after all, it was reserved for the leisure class.. in the past..

          I’m also stoked me and all my failed Artists friends here have spent so many years in the mission sf/bay to enrich and beautify your lives.. thats awesome you guys care. way to celebrate the arts, and us. I mean, soon we’ll all be gone, and this devoid cultural wasteland will be entirely white and completely boring just like the rest of the US, so that’s cool too. Yea, Art aikido.. awesome.. really great to witness this glorious moment in history..

          Oh, and “JOHN” i too wonder what would happen if the issue being debated here wasn’t “SO” trivial.. Remember!!
          MOB RULES.. see ya at the rally!??

      2. Hi Lydia,
        Now you have been informed that the Community Thrift Mural is by Jet Martinez. It is his piece and is under copyright. He clearly did not wish to be a part of this contest.

        It’s called Cease and Desist. Pick another image that is not a blatant rip off. This is a commercial use of a copyright image and this is in no way, shape, or form, legal.

      3. Lydia. I think the idea of a camoed bus is solid. But given the correspondence you had with myself and other artists inCAMP it feels like you selected this piece with a mean spirited
        Intent and now you are feeling the backlash and are trying to defend yourself but it just sounds awkward. I think you should retract this particular image and swap it for something that is not someone’s intellectual property and yet reflects the streets iof sf. I think this would be a good solution. I must repeat I Do not want my art to be involved in this project. I thought I was cool with mission local but I think that in this particular case you are steering it off course and not really looking out for the little people you claim to report about I would also like you to cease using images I have previously given you permission to use. Trust lost

        1. Jet: Great debate. I stand by the contest and our choice. I welcome continuing the conversation.

          1. Please, Lydia, I really want the bridges that you spoke of to be made and the local community of artists not to be burned. I do not sense from you a willingness to talk of this outside of the decision-making process that you are standing by. There must be some room for discourse, out of respect for the very community that Mission Local purports to serve. The artist community is asking to not be alienated and I do not see a productive outcome by locking them out of their own invited dialogue.

          2. @Mike:
            By “corporate response” it seems to me you mean civil response. It’s kind of sad those kinds of responses are left to the corporations these days and civil debate amongst citizens (for and against whatever issue) can’t take place.

          3. Lydia, can you please explain why you moved forward with this image, and even stick by it now, after you were specifically asked not to?

          4. J-Flikka, if I am walking along the street and I see you trying to take a photograph of me, I may ask you not to do that. but I cannot stop you from doing that.

            I do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

          5. John, this has nothing to do with privacy at all. What irks me is that Lydia reached out to CAMP, they responded very clearly that they didn’t want their work involved in any way. Despite that, she went ahead. So what was the point of even asking them in the first place??

            I won’t go as far as others here have and call it “stealing”, and I can’t speak to the legal side, but if nothing else it’s diingenuous and a total dick move.

          6. The fact that CAMP did not want to participate does not mean that an image of their work cannot appear in any other piece of art if, as in this case, CAMP’s art is simply part of the streetscape and in plain public view, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy or exclusivity.

            If they don’t want to share their art, they should keep it in a basement somewhere.

          7. Native, but not only is this a debate but also debate is really the primary purpose of having a comments section.

            It’s a healthy debate where both sides can make their case, and Lydia is correct to encourage that.

        2. Jet Martinez was an artist in residency at Facebook for two weeks when they commissioned him to paint them a mural.

          I’m curious to know if he took one of their busses to their offices. The people who signed his paycheck certainly did.

          It’s been mentioned elsewhere in the comments that lots of folks, including myself, would never have heard of Jet Martinez if not for Mission Local. So this is a little like a celebrity who bemoans their lack of anonymity.

          He made art for the public to see, and now, not only are way more people seeing it as a result of this post, but his art is creating important debate on issues like whether public art can in fact be owned, and the cultural, economic and demographic changes in the Mission as a result of tech. If Jet Martinez is a civic minded artist, I’d think he’d be thrilled.

          1. Heh. Self-absorbed, self-important “celebrities” often claim that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

            I fear Jet doth protest too much.

  36. It’s sad that you had to co-opt the hard work and creativity of so many others for your little contest. Especially after they explicitly said they wanted no part of it and their work to not be used.

    Shame on you.

  37. Holy hell. I bet you work for mission local too. You seem to have a weird hard-on for jet also. Or, you could be just troll bait for more page views. Anywho, thanks for the 2 cents. Ill just get a screenshot, and rehost it.

  38. Hey there,

    I’m Elinor. I saw a contest and I had an idea so I entered. It was unofficial. I would have entered an unofficial pie eating contest as well. I live in the mission. I’m relatively happy. I went to art school and have relationships with a lot of artists whose work is displayed throughout the city. I saw and spoke with a lot them/you at the funeral of an artist, close friend, and mentor that many of us lost early last fall. I’m not an awesome person. I don’t eat babies for dinner. I’m probably going to buy my kids loads of ice cream and then I’ll probably buy a sandwich with the $. Technically the image belongs to Google (its a street view image) so maybe I’ll need more than $500… But that’s for me to worry about. How about this rain?! Finally!

    1. This sounds very flippant (or naive). You just needed the money for your kids ice cream? That does play well into the displacement and class war narrative …

      Perhaps if you had some story or rationale for your ‘art’ there could be some dialog …

      So far you are just advertising google street view and how they own the rights to their images, regardless of the ‘viewed’ content and content generators permission. The story with the clarion alley artists rejecting this content makes your choice particularly inflammatory. You weren’t able to take a photo yourself? Ah, the artists didn’t agree so you are hiding behind google? Good choice I guess …

      BTW, just so you know, people walking down clarion are known to be asked for donations by those artists … sucks to be them. But great to be you! Free ice cream!

      I also encourage ML to post an official tally of the judges votes.

      1. B2B, that’s precious and politically correct. It’s her $500 and she can spend it on what she wants. Trying to guilt her because, at least in your mind, these shuttles are envymobiles is crass.

        Can’t you just be happy for the winner?

    2. Hey Elinor,
      Actually, that image technically belongs to Jet Martinez. That is his mural of Community Thrift. Sure, you grabbed it off of Google Street View; but it is still a copyright image.

      As an artist, it may behoove you to become a little more respectful of copyright law.

      A cease and desist should be sent to you and ML for these shenanigans.

        1. People and busineses living in fear of losing their homes and life investment.
          Family and friends being separated, kids being pulled out of school, seniors being thrown out. Buses spewing emissions all over our neighborhhod, blocking bike lanes and muni……..crime is up. What planet do you live on?

          1. Or: less crime, less nuisance, noise and dumping, better restaurants and bars, more prosperity, cleaner streets, homes are better maintained.

            I see the cup half full and you see it half empty.

  39. This is disgusting. An appropriation of the Clarion Alley artists, shame on you and your pathetic excuse to glad hand to the techies.

    You are no better than the plutocrats destroying the planet, you could have at least used a consenting artist like Ulrika Andersson

    or David Lawrence

    see you in hell.

  40. I feel like this is some sort of aikido publicity stunt because it is so twisted and disrespectful that it’s almost genius. My artwork is featured on nearly half if this so called design without my permission to use it. I specifically wrote a letter to your editor explaining why I thought this project was poison for local artists and that I would not be participating in this project. It’s shocking then to see my work from community thrift store emblazoned over nearly half of the bus. The fact that it’s a google street view capture may give you some legal cover but it most certainly does not hide your lack if ethics. I think you should definitely proceed with this image and I will definitely proceed to lawyer up. Any takers to look into this case for me?

    1. This is a complex issue. On the one hand, using an image from Google Earth does, as one judge commented, raise all sorts of issues regarding the technology and its uses. On the other hand, the image used by the artist/designer was Community Thrift/Clarion Alley. Like you Jet, I hope if Google or some other tech monster goes with Google Earth motif, they use an image more reflective of the Mission. Sorry to say, I have never been a fan of the “putrid in pink” Community Thrift design. Megan Wilson suggested taking a paint can to it. I agree! Let me know when it happens. I may be old school, but I go with the Stones: “Paint It Black”

      1. Fabrizio, I don’t think it helps your point to insult someone’s artwork. It takes down the validity of your argument.

    2. We condemn corporations who don’t let us take and publish photos of their buildings citing copyright reasons, and now mural artists are claiming that they own all rights to reproductions of things viewable in public.

      Would everyone be just as up in arms if the design replaced the paint on Community Thrift/Clarion Alley with beige and grey?

    3. There’s a strong whiff of hypocrisy here. Somehow it’s “poison” for local artists to decorate tech buses but there’s pride in doing a mural for Facebook?

      I agree that it is some sort of “aikido publicity stunt” but I’d say it’s done the most to benefit you! Case in point, I’ve never heard of you until this controversy erupted (and by the way I like your art!).

      Then, I find out that you did a mural for Facebook and judging from all the news clips and photos, it appears you’re quite proud of it? (And you should be!)

      1. A contest the artists declined to be a part of, and explicitly so. Take a look at the links posted.

        1. Am I missing something? I see no images from Clarion Alley. I don’t see even see the name Clarion Alley. I see a street view of a store and an alley. From reading the exchange I get the impression some artists were asked to participate and they said no. They didn’t. But just because they don’t like it, doesnt mean they are right and that ML could not or should not run the contest. Never do they say that ML could not post a photo of Valencia Street which includes a store they do not own. Whether on a bus or a website. I know narcissism is a big deal these days, but really Jet, do you really think the image was chosen because of your little faux pink facade?

          1. The alley you’re seeing IS Clarion Alley. The murals you can see in the photo are the work of the artists who refused to be a part of this contest.

          2. Yes, the streetview image was obviously chosen from many possible along Valencia because it is the most visually striking because of Jet’s work and Chor Boogie and other Clarion Alley artists.

          3. The editor says in the write-up of the contest that it was Clarion Alley and Community Thrift’s representation in the image that contributed to it’s winning status. The “Valencia Street entrance of Clarion Alley and the pink Community Thrift Store… underscores art and giving — both have deep roots in the Mission.” This is a very specific naming. To use these sites as a factor for winning and then to abruptly discount the opinions of those directly involved in the organizations represented seems very contradictory.

  41. Oof. Clarion Alley and Community Thrift are about the two least appropriate things you could put on one of these monstrosities. This contest, it’s $500 reward and everything that goes along with it is a digesting slap in the face to the artist community of the Mission and San Francisco.

  42. this is TERRIBLE!! it looks like thievery. do the artists know their art is driving around on a google bus?? disgusting. please fix this!!!!!

        1. seriously? don’t be lame, if you consider your bm your art and you don’t want someone else using it on the said of a bus, fine. I support you. don’t insult these artists by comparing your sh–t to their murals. also, congrats to ms. diamond for respecting the artists and withdrawing.

        2. Kevin, I’m glad you are letting your inner artist come out.

          Your shits may indeed have merit as sculptures, and may even be better than some art work I’ve seen around town.

          A big part of Art is experimentation, and although the results of experiments are not always satisfying, they should be pushed out and examined anyway.

          Archival preservation of these turds would take you beyond ephemeral performance-art and into the realm of fine art sculpture… Perhaps they could be bronze-dipped, resin coated or even 3D scanned and reproduced en-masse at different scales by anyone with a 3D printer (that would probably even get you a write-up in the New York Times).

  43. Wow, I cannot believe this. I used to love Mission Local! This is infuriating, sad and completely disrespectful of all the Clarion Alley mural artists, in particular, Jet Martinez (who painted Community Thrift). Mission Local contacted some the artists about this project and they all said they were NOT interested in working with Google to “decorate” these buses. Now, with Mission Local, they have chosen the work of an artist who has appropriated and used their work. So, without authorization or consent, their work is STILL featured. Shame shame shame! Is this legal?

  44. Somebody really doesn’t need $500 and I’m pretty sure Elinor Diamond doesn’t.

    You’d have been better off supergluing 500 dollar bills onto a bus.

    1. How do you know the winner doesn’t need the $500?

      And why would that matter anyway? Should we be rewarding people who are poor rather than people who are talented?

      Perhaps you can see why you’d be unlikely to be chosen as a judge?

      1. Nicely framed argument – poor people are not talented? Or is it that only the rich are talented?

        Besides, this whole ‘competition’ is intellectually and morally bankrupt, so – ehh. A $50 Billion company offers $500 to, at the end of the day, basically post a Google Street View on its bus? Not bad for a company owned by Roche, who can afford to pay out $500 Million in fines for price-fixing.

        For a commercial artist this kind of work is worth about $10,000. For a frock designing hack, well, she got what the work’s worth, I guess.

        1. My comment was restricted to the observation that a particular artists should not be denied a cash prize just because she might be well off. This is competition, not welfare.

          Whether her art really was better or not is a highly subjective matter, and decent people can disagree. But I have no reason to believe that the judges were not competent.

  45. From knowing the folks that have spent years painting what is now Clarion Alley Mural Project I send this message to you to protest, as a resident, artist and community member. This represents copyright infringement…the images were created by other artists and represents a repurposing of their art. By law, they must give permission. Have you reached out to them and have you secured proper intellectual copyright permissions for this?

    1. I have also known some who worked on Clarion Alley and as noted below, the winning bus had not one image from Clarion Alley. It was a street photo with a store. Actually, I liked some of the other entries better. I see why the Google Earth design was chosen, but the designer could have found a more iconic, or simply more visually interesting and more Mission-centric photo or drawing. Alas.

        1. steve rhodes, are you suggesting that we have to get permission to take a photo of the outside of a building, a public street, or a mural wall? this is not stealing art, but taking a photo of public art, that which has been photographed thousands of times and is on display for everyone. so the artists are opposed to the “decorate a tech bus” project, but if they don’t want people to see and photograph their art, they should show it in private galleries and museums, not on public streets and building facades.

          1. Hey Biker, actually public murals are copyrighted – though the issue with pursuing action is legal fees. But, if murals are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office – which Clarion Alley Mural Project’s (CAMP) are – then legal fees are guaranteed.

            CAMP is happy to share our work with folks for non-commercial purposes – it is public. However we do have an attorney and we pursue those who use our murals for commercial, for-profit endeavors.

          2. If someone took a photo of only your art and then presented it as theirs, I think you might have a point.

            but this was a street view of which your art was just a small and natural part. Moreover there was no attempt to claim your art as theirs.

            As such, I really think you’re being petty here. It’s a lousy $500 prize and you have no loss or damages. Indeed, you are getting free publicity.

          3. There’s two issues… the simplest one is that Google’s Terms of Service specifically forbids derivative works of the street view photos.

            Secondly, a photo of art is also derivative work. As far as I can tell from this “proposal,” nothing has been done to alter the photo in any way. Based on the Lydia’s comparison to Duchamp’s work below, I think they’re trying to claim that this is satirical parody and, therefore, fair use.

    2. Some of the commenters – artists in an early e-mail and others- seem to think that the choice was a deliberate attempt to annoy/include them.

      First, I did not think that in responding to their e-mail back in December that I was responding to all artists or talking with all artists or all who might want to participate. As I wrote, I respect this group’s position and I did not expect to get entries from them. But their arguments did not persuade me to drop the contest.

      The idea was to get a conversation going, to maybe get some work for an artist who did want to participate, to make the buses and the people in them less separate from the community. Of course it would be up to the artist to decide whether they wanted to take a job from a tech company.

      The work chosen was chosen for the concept. The artists you refer to appear to think that we looked at the entries, tried to find something to annoy them and then selected the winner. I have to say that the notion is preposterous.

      We never discussed them or the e-mail train. The image selected has been on the web site for more than two months because it was one of the earlier entries. No one said a word until it won.

      We talked about all of the comments last night, and not one of us knew that it was a Jet Martinez mural. We do now and so do many others. I hope that helps his career.

      Street View is owned by Google. The legalities of whether they could use it is way beyond the scope of my knowledge.

      And, the Mission values of giving and art eclipse any one street view.

        1. That’s such a rotten thing to say, especially as a representative of a community art project.

          Lydia has helped create another fantastic community resource.

          You should apologize.

          1. Yes- an apology is definitely in order here. An apology for the initial, very shocking emails from the CAMP artists would also be nice. Looks like Lydia very graciously reached out to the artists in hopes that they would want to be part of a creative effort to bridge the gap between “artists” and “techies”, “rich” and “poor”, “natives” and “transplants” and all of the things/labels/stereotypes that keep us from embracing each other in a community that we all share. Replying with such disgust and snobbery to her inquiry was very rude and uncalled for. It was their choice not to get involved, and that was respected. But there is a better way to respond to someone who is reaching out to you with admiration for what you do. And to now accuse her of using your art as spite or of siding with tech companies is just very sad. Have you even been following the recent stories published on ML that explore all of the complexities of the tech buses, gentrification, eviction, displacement, a changing landscape of Mission businesses, etc.? The bus design contest was one of the first efforts I’ve seen in the neighborhood to start breaking down the barriers that stand between us and start a public conversation (through art, no less! How awesome.) Too bad CAMP couldn’t see the value or opportunity for engagement with the public there. Surprising, since it seems that as artists who create public art, they would want to reach as many people as possible. Regardless of the copyright issues that have come up here, there’s the issue of respect. Everyone deserves it, and especially someone who has worked very hard to provide the community with a platform where stories are shared, people, places, art and history are celebrated and ideas are exchanged.

      1. Lydia,
        You continue to not address the specific request by the artist to take down the image, and to chose another winner. This image is not owned by Google, it is owned by the artist. That you do not understand copyright law doesn’t make it OK.

        That you are running a website that is hosting a copyright image and willfully not respecting the artist’s very direct request to take it down is simply breathtaking in its lack of journalistic ethics, morals and integrity.

        I will be writing to Dean Edward Waserman of UC Berkeley to get his input onto this issue, since we are getting nowhere with you, a tenured professor of journalism.

        You have breeched trust in journalistic integrity. I am no expert on journalism or ethics, but a quick search on the Googles lists that journalists are to be accountable. That the scope of the use of the work is “beyond your knowledge” is not an excuse.

        Try this link to help school yourself on the matter:

        This isn’t about helping Jet’s career. This is about journalistic integrity.

      2. Lydia, your comment giving your excuses and explaining your side condemns the contest results all the more. If you had the winning entry for over two months, this shows that you had time to do the job of a journalist and investigate more about the image. Even though the Mission is the neighborhood you are reporting about, no one expects you to know everything about the area. Even something as iconic as Community Thrift, which you chose the image of because of it being a staple of the Mission, it is ok not know who painted the outside. But if you walk in front of the store, you can see Jet Martinez’s signature. Jet doesn’t need the exposure of Mission Local to help his art career. He is very talented and has made a great art carrier for himself. So the only conclusion is that you didn’t know the details of the neighborhood and image you are reporting on and made no effort to do some research. This sets a bad example for future journalism students.

  46. Lydia, it’s good that you ensured that the overtly critical and political entries were not awarded.

    Since I have criticized ML for bias on this topic in the past, it’s only fair when I commend you for doing the right thing here.

    1. As one of the judges, I can tell you Lydia did nothing to ensure against “overtly critical and political” entries other than bar me from voting for my own submission, “George Orwell” (which would not have won as it received only my vote). Also, I should note that winning entry does carry, in my opinion, a very sophisticated political message. I am not surprised you missed it.

      1. You’re not just “one of the judges”, you’re her husband. I’m not implying anything underhanded went on, but you are far from an unbiased voice here.

        And please tell me WTF this statement is even supposed to mean:

        “…that in an age of ambiguity “using the Google Earth image conceptually raises both light and dark aspects of digital technology.”

      2. I see nothing critical of Google in that design. Obviously I am not “sophisticated” enough. And you’re too sophisticated to be able to describe it, conveniently.

        Anyway, the point was more than the more overt and critical designs were rejected, which remains true, as well as desirable.

        1. Why is rejecting “more overt and critical designs” desirable? In the NEW Mission? Desirable personally for you? Please enlighten us about your ulterior motives.

          Also there appears to be disagreement as to how ‘critical’ the winning design actually is. There is defense of the ‘critical’ aspects of this design in the comments …

          Regardless, this design will ultimately get rejected from becoming an ACTUAL bus design simply because it creates a traffic hazard (as pete noted). Actually making this a real design could be construed as evil — and all of a sudden it becomes overt AND critical.