Martin Margiela's t-shirt too similar for artist David Penfound's taste

[luckyme]

sorry, but this is blatant copyright infringement, any designer and/or artist knows better than this, I sincerely hope that MM did not have any insight into this, is it possible his staff made the gaff and he was left out of the loop?

this kind of thing does not happen in the creative industry without repercussions, it is in the art 101 class, day one.

[Meg]

softie - we have a thread on the MJ scarf copyright which was 100% identical for the most part.

While it's is pretty much a ripoff of David Penfound's design, I just do not get why anyone who is sane would by a tshirt with that print on it. It literally makes me think of my home province where we sell a lot tourist shirts with native motifs and going to a tourist shop in south dakota. Maybe i'll start rocking the sweatshirt with cats playing with balls of yarn on it just to keep it interesting

[Street_a_Licious]

over one k for that tee.... man.... thats a lotta money for drapey shoulders and shoulder pads which would have the ladies in the 80s going crazy about.

[LostInNJ]

Originally Posted by Spike413

That's kind of unfair. It's not as if that scarf Marc Jacobs was accused of ripping off a while back was some very well known vintage Hermes print. It was a random original piece from some unknown person that he most likely found in a thrift store or flea market. People were still calling him a rip-off artist regardless of whether it was intentional. He never got the benefit of the doubt with people saying "oh I'm sure he didn't realize it and it was just an oversight".

I don't think Margiela should be held to different standards because you can get a similar t-shirt in a mall. It's still some artists original work. Nor do I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt just because he's considered a god among mortals.

But I suppose if the attitude that it's ok because the print is so common is going to win out, no one could fault other designers for using Margiela's ideas. I mean, haven't many of todays more popular designers at some point or another been accused of stealing his ideas? In fact, I remember seeing somewhere on the boards Balenciaga's painted latex dresses being compared to the very MMM top that's being discussed here, and Guesquiere being called unoriginal for using a blurry landscape design that was similar only if you squint. If it's excusable for Margiela to have used this design, would it be equally excusable if next season Marc Jacobs decides to put foot long shoulders on all of his tops, or would he be called a hack because he stole something that someone else already made?

I think you missed my point completely. I'm not excusing what Margiela did, because I really don't see what he did wrong. The Marc Jacobs scarf print was a copy of one other scarf, not many other scarves that have been redone. The Margiela t's, as mentioned, are generic fantasy prints that can be found anywhere by anyone. I guess my point here is that I don't see that this man is the original creator of this print, and if he is, why not go after every other company out there who has done their rendition of this?

Also, there is a difference in recreating a silhouette (your comparison to next seasons Marc) and blatantly knocking off a print (which Marc's company did). As for Ghesquiere, I see this as him doing his own version of the print. People noted the prints for being similar, but once again, it is a fantasy print. You can't update it that much without turning it into something unrecognizable.

[Blondes]

LostInNJ - I'm sorry but you are missing the point. This is not a generic print, it's a blatant copy of someones artwork. It may be a tacky design with horses on it that most of us would never want to own as a painting, but it's still someones original artwork and they own the rights to it.

There is a BIG difference between seeing a shirt with horses on it and drawing your own horse design, and taking the original shirt and stenciling it. The latter is not legal if the original design i protected by copyright. I doesn't make a difference that it's popular to paint horses. If you want to use someone elses horse-painting you need their permission.

There is the rare case of "double creation" (I'm not sure what it's called in English) - when twoo artists create two things that looks almost identical, completely unaware of one-another, but I think we can all agree on that this is not one of those incidents.

[Scott]

i'm actually a little suprised because i did initially believe that was an original print. and everybody knows margiela's fascination with the mundane....everything from making a waist-coat out of broken china to a sweater made out of recycled military socks. so i thought that this print was just another inspiration from that. it's just his niche. but i never would have expected he would actually copy. he actually could have found these t'shirts in some shop and just re-worked them(as he's done before with a harley t with a wolf....he stitched the wolf intricately with yarn)in such a way and that would have been more justifiable to me. as generic as it is,it is still somebody's work and it is legally licensed out to only one company...

[Casius]

Originally Posted by LostInNJ

[/b]

I think you missed my point completely. I'm not excusing what Margiela did, because I really don't see what he did wrong. The Marc Jacobs scarf print was a copy of one other scarf, not many other scarves that have been redone. The Margiela t's, as mentioned, are generic fantasy prints that can be found anywhere by anyone. I guess my point here is that I don't see that this man is the original creator of this print, and if he is, why not go after every other company out there who has done their rendition of this?

Also, there is a difference in recreating a silhouette (your comparison to next seasons Marc) and blatantly knocking off a print (which Marc's company did). As for Ghesquiere, I see this as him doing his own version of the print. People noted the prints for being similar, but once again, it is a fantasy print. You can't update it that much without turning it into something unrecognizable.

I see what you're trying to say but I take it you haven't looked at the two prints close enough.

This wouldn't be a big deal if the stream wasn't flowing the exact same way in the print, or if the mountains didn't have the same exact shadowing, or the horses placement, or the lightning, or any of the other parts of the print that looks the exact same as the one done in 1998.

My guess on what happened; Someone found the shirt in some bargain bin/thrift shop/what have you and decided it would work well with the collection (this isn't the first time Margiela has used fantasy prints like this, check out AW2005 mens collection).
Honestly, who would ever think that print is actually copy written?!

[masquerade]

Originally Posted by LostInNJ

[/b]

I think you missed my point completely. I'm not excusing what Margiela did, because I really don't see what he did wrong. The Marc Jacobs scarf print was a copy of one other scarf, not many other scarves that have been redone. The Margiela t's, as mentioned, are generic fantasy prints that can be found anywhere by anyone. I guess my point here is that I don't see that this man is the original creator of this print, and if he is, why not go after every other company out there who has done their rendition of this?

Also, there is a difference in recreating a silhouette (your comparison to next seasons Marc) and blatantly knocking off a print (which Marc's company did). As for Ghesquiere, I see this as him doing his own version of the print. People noted the prints for being similar, but once again, it is a fantasy print. You can't update it that much without turning it into something unrecognizable.

this is a copy of one other print. Just because the image belongs to a genre doesn't mean its not exact. The placement of the river and the horses is the same. The artist deserves credit for what he did even if you think the image has not aesthetic value.

[Blondes]

Originally Posted by Casius

Honestly, who would ever think that print is actually copy written?!

Like I said above - keep in mind that the rights to any artwork are protected at least 50 years from creation (or more, I elaborated on this above) - so artwork looking like it was created later than in the fifties is highly likely to be protected. This type of fantasy paintings were not being made in the early 1900's.

This is a forum for people in the fashion industry, and I assume some of you are designers. Yet one after another people come into this thread saying "wow, who would have thought", when in fact it's very obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the protection of artistic works that this is not ok. I really hope any aspiring designers reading and seeing this will take some time to familiarize themselves with this legal area, because it important to know both in order to protect your own rights and not infringe on others.

Here is a link where you can find international treaties as well as links to national legislation to most countries: http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en

[KKnardi]

^thank you blondes! I'm learning!

[mode]

spike i agree...no matter how common or ugly a print is, stealing it is ALWAYS wrong. there are no excuses, not even for ~martin~

[LostInNJ]

Originally Posted by masquerade

this is a copy of one other print. Just because the image belongs to a genre doesn't mean its not exact. The placement of the river and the horses is the same. The artist deserves credit for what he did even if you think the image has not aesthetic value.

I never it said it lacked aesthetic value, that wasn't my point. I can see the points made in here and can understand everyone's point, I just hope that the next time I express a different opinion people don't put words in my mouth and at least try and understand the point I am making, whether or not it is correct.

[Casualuxury]

Originally Posted by Blondes

Casualuxury, I find it very surprising that they would TEACH you to do that. The Berne convention states a minimum of artists/authors life + 50 years of protection for signed work and a minimum of 50 years from creation for anonymous work. Some countries have made it 70 years in national legislation.

Given the fact that t-shirts with print weren't exactly all the rage in 1950's or 1930's, there would be very few images that were copyright free.

It's quite ironic how this is an industry constantly crying wolf about all the bad bad counterfeiters, while if given the chance the "real designers" don't mind infringing on other peoples rights.

Believe me, i was just as surprised when i walked into my 12:45 digital class to find out we were taking a basic blue and white paisley and manipulating it in photoshop to make our own continuous print, then a week later we had to bring in a t-shirt to my patter drafting class and make a rub off and then make that into a working patter. I'm sure it's just an american thing, I can see loads of American designers doing that, I pray it's different in stolkholm or better yet throughout the world.

I'm not saying it's right i'm just saying that the artist should be honored for having Marty rip him off. I don't thing Marty did it intentionally either, i feel like he went to a bunch of yard sales or what have you, because some of the inspiration to me reminds me of late70's early 80's metal head white trailor trash, but in a good way, you know like a visionaire would interpret it.

[JuiceMajor]

I just feel sorry for those who paid so much for it.

[ETROsexualJ]

Anyone remember those men's Balenciaga tshirts from like 2003 that had the tiger, dolphin, etc prints on them? Looked very much like something you could get a Zoo or Rainforest Cafe gift shop?