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

[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]

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]

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?

 

[vetements]

i guess this is somewhat a shame that this year being margiela's 20th anniversary.
although it does nothing really substantial for me, i still think he is one of the greatest designer.
and i ll want to believe it(the stealing) wasnt done on purpose, on the contrary, perhaps just one of his irony as always.

 

[Scott]

^neither me as well. because for the most part the originality of his work in ALL these years really outweigh one silly mistake.

 

[masquerade]

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.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, I am just confused because with the exception of the Native American, the print is exactly the same.

 

[educo]

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

Usually all prints (which is considered artwork) are copy written. I went to an artists legal seminar and the lawyer said that as soon as you put pen to paper and draw, and date it, it's copy written. When you file it with the gov't, it gives you federal protection.

So yes, David's drawing is copy written (otherwise, how would he be able to sell his work through Mountain T-shirt Company without getting ripped off) and that's how he makes money.

ALSO, there is a clause with copy written material. ANY DERIVATIVE of the original artwork IS covered under the original artist. Since it is obvious that this is a DERIVATIVE piece, Margiela is guilty of copyright infringement.

 

[ANTONIOATAIDE]

well I think this is not very hard to happen. it was a known painting from that british guy, so Margiela could easily come through it and print it on the t-shirt. plus, as it was said before, i believe that margiela buyers go on a deeper analysis than just looking at the picture. I guess the cut is much more important

 

[ANTONIOATAIDE]

however, I surely can't stop condemning Margiela for not contacting the painting's creator and get the rights

 

[softgrey]

topshop has done their own version of the margiela t-shirt...
a knock off of the rip off...as it were...

http://www.topshop.com/webapp/wcs/s..._category_rn=58914&productId=673006&langId=-1

 

[Casius]

topshop has done their own version of the margiela t-shirt...
a knock off of the rip off...as it were...

http://www.topshop.com/webapp/wcs/s..._category_rn=58914&productId=673006&langId=-1

LOL. Napoleon Dynamite was way ahead on this trend.....Moon boots are next.

 

[cocohokkaido]

This is crazy. Margiela doesn't do a great deal of prints so I'm shocked that he and his team didn't put more thought into the result when they do use a print. I saw it at Barneys and it is a very beautiful piece in real life. It doesn't give off that awkward trashy graphic tees vibe at all because of the cut and draping, but seeing the comparisons it's undeniable that he did rip someone off!

I'm quite bummed out by this. He's the only designer I buy consistently from over the seasons. Other than this bummer he did do a great SS collection, though.

 

[Scott]

^i actually rather liked that piece when i saw it,myself. i thought the way the shape juxtaposed with the drama of the print,really gave the piece and interesting look.

but you know something,thinking about this,we sit and lambast him but this is a guy who in all of his 20+years has NEVER,EVER done anything like this and this one instance those who attempt to defend his integrity are somehow foolish. i don't accept that. as i said,this is one silly mistake in all these years and i can't find myself not defending him in that. and people bringing up marc jacobs and all of these brands,you have to remember these are people that do this on a consistent basis and they also copy fellow designers who don't generate the revenue they do....so i don't really understand that arguement. this is just one cheesy print that's supposedly mass-marketed on a gazillion novelty items,not just one original artwork that's hanging in a museum. i'm not defending the use nor his team for not researching and perhaps asking about the print but this lone mistake doesn't make him as evil as everybody else. but one has to believe for who he is,this was just a pure misunderstanding or misinterpretation of how it could be used.

 

[softgrey]

this lone mistake doesn't make him as evil as everybody else.

i think evil is pretty dramatic...
no fashion designers are evil...
hitler was evil...

these guys are just making and selling clothing...



it's not really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things..
but it is rather shocking and ridiculous....
it's a pretty bad faux pas...


you know?!.......

 

[Inaya]

I haven't replied yet... half because I am an admitted Margiela loyalist

and half because I am torn on the actual issue. When I first saw Margiela's garment - I actually assumed it probably WAS a rip off/parody of some midwest American gas station souvenir type t-shirt. I assumed that the purpose of this garment had always been to have such an intentionally symbolic/trashy/very recognizable print juxtaposed on a garment which is very modern and non-trashy in it's construction. The designs ARE incredibly similar though, so it's hard for me to have an opinion given my initial thoughts and now taking into account this controversial expose of sorts.

 

[Scott]

you're right softie,it is. and yes evil maybe a slight impassioned viewpoint

 

[mikka000]

Hmmm, when i first saw that MMM collection I was a tad surprised because those horse t-shirts are really banal and just plain ugly. reminds me of Madonna circa 'Music' when she was toying with trailer park chic.

the less said about this style of t-shirts, whoever the hell makes them, the better.

now, that MMM Sartorial line sounds like a real treat....

 

[kahlilg]

I haven't replied yet... half because I am an admitted Margiela loyalist

and half because I am torn on the actual issue. When I first saw Margiela's garment - I actually assumed it probably WAS a rip off/parody of some midwest American gas station souvenir type t-shirt. I assumed that the purpose of this garment had always been to have such an intentionally symbolic/trashy/very recognizable print juxtaposed on a garment which is very modern and non-trashy in it's construction. The designs ARE incredibly similar though, so it's hard for me to have an opinion given my initial thoughts and now taking into account this controversial expose of sorts.

that's what i assumed too.