Galliano fined for copying imagery

[fourboltmain]

they didn;'t even make new photos...they used HIS....

That's what got me, was it over the paint or the pictures? I figured it had to be the pictures because of the amount of $ involved. Photographers have been painting on prints forever to create borders or just to be creative. So I saw nothing wrong until I saw the example above, which is just LOW. You think they'd steal better pictures huh? But they were careful not to use Ilford's logo and film ID too (but Ilford makes no color film anyway) when faking the contact sheet.

But wait, if they took his pictures from him, then he took the pictures of the models in Galliano clothes and didn't get paid or what? I'm even more confused now. LOL

BTW, Galliano's logo is awful too, it looks like it was done in MS Word.

 

[static]

^It was over the particular borders/layouts...Klein's photographs were of some protest in Paris whereas Galliano's were Agyness Deyn in body paint

 

[imagedistillery]

thats is crap u cant sue someone for having the same painting style

They didn't use the same style they used his actual images.

 

[tylw]

I think all art contains some type of appropriation, but there is inspired appropriation (when the new work furthers the dialogue) and appropriation that is akin to stealing. Even then, plenty of artists have willfully played with the "stealing" theme as a way to challenge the concept of intellectual property within the art world.

I, for one, am very glad that William Klein is making a fuss. He is a brilliant (truly innovative) photojournalist, meaning he also probably adheres to some value of the creative process rather than simply the end-product.

This type of philosophy stands in direct opposition to much of the fashion industry. So, let's not just assess the similarities of the two sets of photos. I imagine the wound goes much deeper for Klein. Imagine spending hours, weeks, months, perhaps years coming up with a design concept and then having someone snatch the end-product as their own. In that, I think lies the true dishonesty of the Galliano's pilfering. Whoever conceived of the Galliano campaign didn't walk the same creative path. In the least, they did not pay the same debt of time. The ends do not negate the necessity of the means.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Kaisik Wong/Nicholas Ghesquire disaster, when it was discovered that Ghesquire directly copied Wong's patchwork vest for his SS 2002 collection. At least Ghesquire apologized, and unfortunately Kaisik Wong had already passed away and could not defend himself. I wonder though, if Ghesquire got a free pass, not because of his apology or because Wong had passed away, but because stealing within one's discipline is more tolerated. I mean, it's obvious that the fashion and photojournalism worlds have different professional standards.

Plagiarism of someone's words is much easier to see than that of their art or style (I also remember Richard Avedon once said that every photographer is a "Cartier-Bresson baby."). And certainly, the courts are not perfect, remember when they fined poor George Harrison for stealing a certain chord progression?

 

[Luca*]

I'd be honoured to have Galliano copy my art. So should Klein...he's being a loser...get over it.

Oh, come on!
It might be a honour that Galliano uses or copys your art but not without permission.
If he liked the style of Klein's pics then he should have asked for permission to use them and pay for it!
He has no right to just take Klein's artwork and use it for his ads, no matter how great of a designer he is.

If you create something and I take it to advertise the stuff I want to sell, you would call that stealing but when Galliano does this it's okay, just because he's John Galliano???

It's against the law (of any society) to steal someone else's property (and that includes mental property). Galliano is a human as everyone else and thus has to follow the law ,too.
There simply are no excuses for what he did!

 

[ShesElectric]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for the sake of proving my point...

Why should those who knock-off Dior handbags have to deal with the legal consequences of it, and not the conglomerate who knock's off an artists work?

 

[ShesElectric]

Thank you!
It was done without permission - or in the least, credit.

 

[ShesElectric]

i know it's not always about the money, and yes, galliano should be corrected from his overlooking of things.
but really...i highly doubt klein would careless if it's some small time artist that copied his work because the small artist doesnt have the bigger fame.

I don't know about you but I think that makes perfect sense. Less can be done in terms of consequences (aside from.. oh I don't know, a small fine) BECAUSE it would cause less damage.

However, when you are a world famous designer working for an enormous design conglomerate that showcases its designs to millions (and rakes in just as much per day) and can afford to expose this blatent rip-off in magazines around the world, much more can and SHOULD be done. It is much more believable (unfortunately) that a lesser known artist has knocked off a huge designers work than a huge designer knocking off a small-time artists work.

This can kill (and most definately would if nothing is done about it) an artists credibility within his circle.

If you are so creative as to come up with a concept that shines through within your work that someone as huge as Galliano (or Dior, LVMH, etc) would want to knock off, than surely you should be credited. What is mind boggling is the fact that the artist wasn't approached for a legit collaboration. This would give Dior more umph in the design world in my opinion, not that it needs it.

Judging from the courts judgment, I'm guessing Galliano had a lot to do with this, and not just the 9-5'er in charge of copyright and legalities.

Edit: Furthermore, $200, 000 is just a penny in the barrel.

 

[ilaughead]

*how did they think they would get away with it...???
that is the puzzling part...

I know! You'd think that with a company as large as Christian Dior, that they'd at least run the ad images/ideas past the legal department or something.

 

[Scott]

tylw,you said it. i think that's a large part of the problem...dishonesty within these mega-brands. they do think they can get away with everything. not only in instances like this,but also ripping off fellow designers that are lesser known than they are....who have the most original ideas.

i am glad somebody like Klein is bringing light by suing and ultimately getting what galliano deserves. i just don't understand how this industry which has increasingly--with the rise of the avant-garde the last decade--become another medium for creativity,allows so many incidents like this. we all should shout it from the rooftops that we won't abide by this no more from those superior to us in status and money.

 

[JamieCD]

We will see what itd be!!!
'Thats not too sensible of johnG

 

[tylw]

Umm, Squizree, I hope you realize that William Klein is considered a master within the photography world. Saying that he should be flattered by Galliano's imitation is like saying Yves Saint Laurent should be amused by Ralph Lauren copying his clothes. This actually happened, and Yves won the lawsuit, with Ralph Lauren fined US$385,000 for one tuxedo dress! Ironically, Yves himself was later fined $11,000 himself for copying a couturier (Yves is tops in my book, but I'vm glad to see the French judicial system working both ways, not simply excusing a fashion legend).

How these things pan out really depend on the reaction of the person being imitated. Imitation is only flattery if the imitated feels flattered. If that person is offended by the use of their work (i.e. they sense a difference in aesthetic philsophy), they have every right to file a lawsuit. And, I see a vast difference between the Calvin Klein ads and what Galliano did. It would not surprise me that the Galliano lawyers were actually aware of the image theft, but lawyers are not paid to encourage ethical behavior ; corporate lawyers are paid more often to finesse the contours of the law.

All this successful fashion litigation must be a distinctly French phenomenon. I don't even think clothes are copyrighted in the US (trademarks are, but silhouettes are not).

I'd be honoured to have Galliano copy my art. So should Klein...he's being a loser...get over it.

 

[belletrist]

I'd be honoured to have Galliano copy my art. So should Klein...he's being a loser...get over it.

Yep, but you are not Klein. And when Galliano will be entirely forgotten (the sooner the better if you ask me), people will still admire Klein's work.

Honestly I can't believe people are saying "it's normal, everyone copies each others". Well first Klein is an artist, Galliano isn't, he's a fashion designer. He has made a copyright infringe (a dull one honestly) and he should be punished for this. It's so ridiculous. Same for the Chanel tv ad which is a TERRIBLE copy of the beginning of Godard's Contempt (do you like my legs? etc). Who do they think they are? They sell leather and cotton, no more, and they assume they can do whatever they want, without any respect for art?

And, btw, artist don't copy, they may take inspirations, but they don't copy - if they do so, then they aren't artists, because being an artist implies that you have your own vision. And to people who says that it's just "splash of colors" well his work is very complicated, both in term of art and technique, because almost everything would destroy the negatives. And concerning what someone says about the International Blue Klein, then yes, they sue people, because the color is copyrighted

Hope he'll pay him. and well.

 

[Scott]

^i hope this doesn't sum up the fashion world all together. because i do think there are those such as McQueen,Kawakubo and Margiela who are always original in their own vision and never have to resort to such dispicable things. and although,it is just clothes,the medium of fashion is very evident so for these people to do something like that,it is so disrespectful to all creative people in any form.

and i completely agree with you how surprising it is to see those say how normal it is. that's the problem,people see it and will recognise it but ultimately it's always ignored. that's quite sad to me and i hope it changes.

 

[Zazie]

Yay!!! So glad to see so many tfsers support the creatives, Scott, Lena, tylw, softgrey, all....couldn't have put it better than tylw! I'd better also debunk the false impression that we fashion slaves (i'm including myself, of course) assume - not everyone loves fashion, in fact, a lot of artists despise it for a variety of reasons - its commercialism, its mindless consumption, its frivolity, etc. I seriously doubt that Klein would have "collaborated" with Dior even if big $$$ were involved, it would erode his credibility and that is the whole problem with this plagiarism. When it is plastered all over the glossy mags, people who know about Klein's work would think it was a collaboration, and people who do not know would assume it's Dior's own creative genius. Perhaps if Klein were a fashion photographer/artists, we can make a careful assumption that he might be more open to such collaborations, but he isn't! And if it were a nameless, clueless artist doing the copying, of course there is no need to make a big deal, because the damage from the plagiarism is limited and easily rectified. Even if you're a die-hard fan of Galliano, you should still respect the integrity and the rights of others not to be infringed by Dior/Galliano.

Btw, the Chanel ad is the most AWFUL thing I've ever seen - watch the original Le Mepris (Contempt) to understand the genius of Godard...and oooohhhh...the divine Villa Malaparte in the film!!! Anyway, at least Chanel acknowledges it's a tribute, and gives credit to Godard.

 

[Virginielle]

Btw, the Chanel ad is the most AWFUL thing I've ever seen - watch the original Le Mepris (Contempt) to understand the genius of Godard...and oooohhhh...the divine Villa Malaparte in the film!!! Anyway, at least Chanel acknowledges it's a tribute, and gives credit to Godard.

Yeah that ad is just kind of stupid without any familiarity of the reference, but it definitely reads as a tribute and not a copy, as previously posted.

And also, I believe it is true that fashion is not copyrighted in the US. Not that that makes any difference on matters abroad.

 

[tylw]

It does in the sense that the accuser has to sue the accused in an European court. I think they often sue first in Europe, to test the waters for the American court system, which has more rigid standards for what constitutes intellectual property (across all disciplines). I guess Klein can sue again in America, if the ads were published here, or maybe not.

My only additional point is that the opposite (an excessively liberal definition of intellectual property) also harms creativity. Imagine if the DNA code for the human genome were copyrighted. And I suspect most creative types don't devote their time to bottling their creativity. That's why it's helpful when established artists bring about lawsuits to highlight a potential problem, lest lesser-known artists get victimized without legal recourse.

And also, I believe it is true that fashion is not copyrighted in the US. Not that that makes any difference on matters abroad.

 

[tylw]

Hi Zazie, which Chanel ad do you mean? I love Godard, so I'd be interested in seeing it.

Btw, the Chanel ad is the most AWFUL thing I've ever seen - watch the original Le Mepris (Contempt) to understand the genius of Godard...and oooohhhh...the divine Villa Malaparte in the film!!! Anyway, at least Chanel acknowledges it's a tribute, and gives credit to Godard.

 

[Virginielle]

It does in the sense that the accuser has to sue the accused in an European court.

Of course it does---sorry, that was just an FYI statement. I assumed they'd be suing in Europe.. I meant that fashion isn't copyrighted, not art or advertisement.

And tylw, I believe we're referring to this ad (courtesy of youTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L31pq0WgRIs

 

[fashionistasista]

the amount of times ive read this thread name on the main page and thought it said 'galliano fired'.....sheesh lol