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

[MUXU]

about the 'automatic artist copy written' issue...i read an article/protest on how the american goverment is taking that right away. leaving all art work that is not legally copy righted to be freely used by whomever that sees it and picks it up than use it. this of course, benefit a lot of other companies such as a clip art company that hire people to search out these "free" images all over the internet and on sites like DeviantArt and take the image and make money out of them. i haven't follow up this protest so im not sure how it's getting on now.

i was rather stunned that it's margiela that gets into a situation like this. but than again, he did got his start with mainly recycling old garments and such.
all these give-and-take is really just an eye for an eye. you rip me off, i rip you off etc.
with 'nostalgia' being a big trend for the past couple years and even (still) now, it's almost like a big break for designers because they can just dig up old designs from the 20th century and "rework" them

honestly though, i actually quite like the print on the margiela shirt hehe. there is something quite lovely and "modern" in 'cheesy' prints like that. the print to me seems very "now", reminds me of the balenciaga prints in recent collections. now i wanna get the original penfound shirt

 

[ApertureRomance]

It's a shame. Perhaps Margiela could have collaborated with the artist instead of slightly altering the print.

 

[fauxpas]

In the ultimate case, Penfound shoulb be excited, not to say thrilled, that a work of his is subject/inspiration for one of the most avant-garde designers (though the most mysterious one) of the 21st century...

 

[masquerade]

In the ultimate case, Penfound shoulb be excited, not to say thrilled, that a work of his is subject/inspiration for one of the most avant-garde designers (though the most mysterious one) of the 21st century...

Yeah, I'm sure he is just thrilled that someone he has probably never heard of is making $1,400 a piece off of something that uses his artwork.

 

[fauxpas]

Yeah, I'm sure he is just thrilled that someone he has probably never heard of is making $1,400 a piece off of something that uses his artwork.

i would feel proud, violated though..

 

[Scott]

erm,but it just wasn't the print but the design itself.....the fact that it included a dramatic shoulder enhancer(which if i am not mistaken is leather) and a beautiful silhouette and that it had a lovely material. you can't really ***es the price purely on the print emblazoned. so in alot of ways he didn't just make money off this guy's artwork but his own work as well.

 

[ETROsexualJ]

I cannot fathom why anyone here is siding with MMM on this.

 

[Scott]

not i,but one does have to give him the benefit of the doubt considering he's never done anything like this before and that he has been a genuine original till this one mistake. as i said in previous statements,marc jacobs and miuccia they have copied(which i point out quite vocally)but no seems to have made as much a deal out of what they've done. and they do it constantly and of their own peers....

perhaps it's because he's long-been a creative that people see more a faux pas? but some of these other designers too have been considered leaders

 

[Blondes]

It's quite simple - there are laws protecting artists rights to their work. Taking an image and using it without the artist permission is not legal.
It is copy right infringement. That you like Margiela and that he has been great for 20 years does not change that.

The whole discussion about not meaning it or not knowing about the protection of artwork, giving him the benefit of the doubt etc. would perhaps be relevant if we were talking about a fashion student's collection, someone just starting out. This is an established designer who no doubt has both the lawyers and the funds to acquire the right to images he wants to use in a legal way.

That there are plenty of inspired-by designs out there, is to me the strangest argument from those here siding with Margiela, because that is exactly what he could and should have done in this case and no ones rights would have been violated.

 

[Crying Diamonds]

I always hated those Margielas anyway; uber-tack.

 

[fashionista-ta]

anyone else remember the marj jacobs scarf from last year that this happened with....
it's almost the same exact story...

didn't anyone at mmm hear about that?!...
you know...
even if the artist sues them...
they are still making a lot of money~

Yes, it was the first thing I thought of ... it was absolutely the identical design, whereas with this shirt, they did at least change a couple things in Photoshop or whatever Marc & Martin are both nominated to the Designers Who Need to Get Some Original Ideas club ...

 

[fashionista-ta]

barneys.com



Miuccia is nominated too ... I think the members of the club should be allowed to rip off only each other, which will work out quite well for Miuccia from the looks of things

 

[Scott]

^well,she has already made quite the living doing just that.

blondes,i dunno why you assume because he is who is,that he's somehow wealthy because ultimately diesel and staff intl.(of which mmm is under)owner renzo rosso gets a pretty big chunk of the percentages he makes. plus the money he has to pay his staff and the materials. margiela is definitely not a rich designer.

and btw,let's hope in the foreseeable artisanal and his spring collection,he will redeem himself.

 

[fashion.fashoff]

i would be thunderstruck if margiela knowingly used a copyrighted design. i suspect, as some others have already suggested, that margiela probably found this design on some thrift store t-shirt or something and then incorporated it into the overall design of his garments. similar to, for example, his white tee-shirts with a printed design of a somewhat crumpled up old hula dancer tee-shirt on the front. the style of image on the disputed garments (nostalgic americana with heroic indians, western vistas, etc.) is not uncommon and there are certainly hundreds of the same ilk that are not copyrighted. i think mmm just unknowingly used a copyrighted example.

personally i find the original image to be hideously tacky and feel it belongs either on those heavily lacquered wooden clocks with glued-on gold numbers, or airbrushed onto a framed piece of black velvet. however, i like mmm's exaggerated, intimidating silhouette combined with the fantasy-tinged image (in which the indian chief is replaced by rocks, making the image feel a little desolate and alienating IMO).

 

[TheR]

anyone who bought that for $1400 just took a big L.

 

[Scott]

^why? it's a great top.

 

[vetements]

^i second that

 

[fashionispoison]

god. i think i'll just get the topshop one. or maybe i should support the original artist...

 

[candyandcouture]

lets support the original! I feel bad for the poor guy. It really sucks to have your work blatantly ripped off