It is unfortunately not so rare in our times to spot on Instagram an independent artist or designer complaining about a major fashion brand plagiarising their original works or using their artworks without crediting them. This practice often makes you wonder why fashion houses - often famous ones and with enough money to pay for such a collaborations - do not get in touch with the author of that specific artwork or design asking for a proper partnership.
The latest incident of this kind regards Mexico City-based artist Brendan Fagan, known for his collages under the pseudonym Judith Supine. Friends spotted his artworks on garments by Brooklyn indie brand Meg, but Fagan/Supine hadn't really given any permission to use them.
In this case the brand's founder Meghan Kinney admitted she had purchased a wallpaper with a print by Judith Supine from Flavor Paper. Entitled "Eye of The Beholder", the artwork featured a series of collage portraits by Judith Supine, and the print was correctly attributed to the artist in the product description. Kinney liked the print and decided to use it in a dress, skirt and top in Meg's S/S 2020 collection (inspired by Mexico City) without asking for any permission. Despite the company sold $4,855.97 worth of products with this motif and continued to do so even after Fagan's sent a cease & desist letter, the artist was only offered $950 in compensation.
"Those of you who know me understand that I am a very private person; I let my artwork speak for me. So writing this is difficult for me but I am doing it with the hopes that other artists will not have their work exploited without their permission as someone has done to me," the artist stated on his Instagram page.
"They acknowledge that I have a rightful claim for copyright infringement and admit that Meg profited from these unlawful sales (they say 5k in profit), but then go on to say that since they know it will cost me more to sue them than what I can get in damages (because the artwork wasn't registered prior to the unlawful use), they are only offering me 1k to settle my claims. So for all you artist's out there be aware and protect yourself! The only way to really do so is to register your artworks with the US Copyright office," Fagan concluded.
Now, despite the artwork wasn't registered prior to the unlawful use, it was actually sold on Flavor Paper and credited to Judith Supine, so you may argue that here Fagan has a case. Even if we admit that the artwork wasn't registered, Kinney should have still got in touch with Flavor Paper that, as a seller, may have pointed out the wallpaper was made by a specific artist. So Fagan may be able to defend his case here.
Yet there is something else to consider in this case: since 2019, Fagan has been working on collages featuring the names of prominent brands: quite often he used the Marlboro Country cowboy in collages that looked like spoof adverts for Prada, Marni, Saint Laurent or Fendi. Synonymous with America's image of a hard-working handsome self-made man, the Marlboro Man appeared in ads for over thirty years, always with a cigarette in his mouth.
Fagan/Supine's purpose was maybe to make a comment about cancer and fashion (throughout the decades, at least four Marlboro Men died of smoking-related diseases and caused further deaths of more men who emulated the imaginary fictional hero), while also looking at contradictions such as virililty/fragility or material wealth/health.
The idea looked pretty cool especially when Fagan printed his collages on posters and took over bus stops: passers-by probably looked at the posters and wondered "is this for real or are these spoof ads?" In some cases, like Prada's and Marni's spoof adverts, the collages with their recombined bits and pieces, bizarre proportions and severed limbs, looked indeed almost genuine as Fagan seemed to capture the essence of these brands (it is often the case that bootleg designs, unofficial merchandise or fantasy collaborations look better than the real thing...).
The fact that they almost looked like authentic adverts is probably the reason why the ads weren't immediately removed from bus-stops when Fagan took over them. When he exhibited them a while back none of the companies involved complained, after all this is art and Fagan may have appealed to satire and the principles of Pop Art or even excused himself saying he was paying a tribute to these brands.
But, a few months ago, one these collages inspired by the cover of a magazine and featuring a gun, the title "Guns are out of control" and Prada's name was featured on a T-shirt by Paradigm Publishing.
If that had been a bootlegged T-Shirt for an art project, maybe exhibited in a gallery, things may have been different but, last November the T-shirt was available at Dover Street Market and on Paradigm Publishing's site.
Now, while in the case of the adverts consumers may have wondered if they were real or fake, in this case consumers may have thought this was an official collaboration as the T-shirt featuring Judith Supine's print was sold in a conceptual fashion store that stocks Prada (Judith Supine has sometimes collaborated with fashion designers in the past, his collages appeared for example in Manish Arora's A/W 2012-13 collection).
So far none of these brands went after the artist in question (and they may have easily done so considering how some fashion houses and brands have a strict policy about being associated with tobacco and alcohol companies and with guns as well), but Judith Supine's artworks may expose the artist to dilemmas very similar to those seen in the case of the Satan sneakers by MSCHF in collaboration with Lil Nas X that may have generated some confusions in those consumers who thought they were official Nike shoes.
Besides, in this case the artwork turned T-shirt may prove more dangerous for the artist as it may be taken by Meg's lawyers as a proof that Judith Supine used the name of a famous fashion houses in a collage that was later turned into a commercial T-shirt (yes, Meg never asked permission, but did he ask permission to Prada & Co?), so the story may have further implications.
The solution to this problem? If you're a fashion designer slways consider the wider implications that using original artworks by artists without asking their permission may have on your work; but, if you're an artist, also consider the consequences that using the name of a brand/logo in a unique work may have if you ever decide to turn that piece of work into a commercial product.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.