In November, we asked the question: Is anything worn by pop superstar Katy Perry protected by the U.S. Constitution? Well, it appears as though the answer to this question is a firm "no."
Friday, January 15, 2016
Judge Allows Graffiti Artist's Lawsuit Over Katy Perry's Met Gala Dress
In November, we asked the question: Is anything worn by pop superstar Katy Perry protected by the U.S. Constitution? Well, it appears as though the answer to this question is a firm "no."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is all confusing and the argument seems so out of date even though it’s setting the precedent for art’s use by the fashion industry. Out of date in the sense that Tierney made that design, and this company took that design, removed the artist’s signature, and made a gown off of it, profiting off of someone else’s work. In the simplest terms, that’s what it is, a large company making money off of something they stole. So it seems ridiculous that Tierney is having to prove that this is a case he can win, because the mentality that of course he owns his art is drilled into my head. And Moschino is a huge company they could have paid this artist, but they didn’t in fact they removed his signature from it so he doesn’t even get the publicity. This company tried to disconnect this man from the art he created and that is absurd. It is only because Moschino has access to such impeccable lawyers that this is still even a discussion.
It is so frustrating as an artist to have someone rip off your work. Here' you bearing your soul onto a canvas, or in this case a wall, and whomever deciding, so easily without any effort to take it. And in this huge scale, with design powerhouse Moschino, I would be livid. Yes, they put Rime's name on it, but he never consented to it. He is cited in the article as having endorsed other things, so why not ask? Also, as a designer, couldn't they just have commissioned one of the many talented graffiti artists today that exist in the public eye? This was a huge mistake on their part, and I'm glad the court is allowing this to go to trial. I am a big fan of Moschino, I think that they're usually a very modern and forward thinking company, but this has made me lose a lot of respect for them.
This battle seems as though it will continue for a while in court.
I appreciated that this article seemed as though it had little to no opinion on the situation but rather just stated the facts.
This argument is a complicated one. When someone graffitis a wall, it is considered vandalism. When another artist, or in this case designer takes this vandalism and showcases it to the entire world at the MET it creates even larger issues.
I do not know where I stand on this issue.
I can appreciate Rime's view on this scenario and Moschino's. If I were RIME I would be aggravated that I were not receiving financial benefits from Moschino using my artwork in one of his works, however, the art was placed in a public place on a public canvas. From Moschino's perspective, if it were a photograph of the art printed onto the dress it would be his art (the photograph) that was being used, the subject of the photo being the graffiti. This is where the lines blur. Some may see it as paying homage to Rime where as others see Moschino as a thief.
If I have learned one thing since reading this article, its to legally protect your work before displaying it.
Post a Comment