Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Sued Over Copycat Artist Work in 'Start Something New' Campaign

Britto will get some free publicity for his commercial business from the suit. To bad Apple can't counter-sue to get back their legal costs due to this PR stunt.

Picasso's estate is too wealthy and classy to need to bother suing both Britto and C&K for even more PR.
 
theheadguy said:
Let me save you all time from reading the forum comments:

Because it's a lawsuit against Apple, nobody here will see the likeness. Down with you Britto!

Image
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there is no such thing as an Apple forum, just forums that focus on Apple topics loaded with haters whose sole purpose is to create strawman posts like yours.
 
This is not trade dress.
You cannot patent or trademark a 'style' of design.
If Apple or the artists explicitly recreated his artwork, then yes, that falls under copyright. However, this guy cannot even remotely claim that the *style* of his work is wholly original in and of itself, let alone sue someone who makes something that is similar in style.

I don't believe there is legal precedent for this.
 
bdkennedy1 said:
Britto will never win this. The images Apple used are not copied, but used in the style of Britto, which is obviously influenced by Picasso.
Click to expand...

I don't even think Britto's style was used, necessarily.

Both are in a stained-glass style, with the bold black lines and bright colors. And both use patterns where stained glass would use solid colors. But that doesn't seem like such an unusual or unique leap to me and that's pretty much it. Meanwhile, the lines in Craig and Karl pieces flow a lot more and the textures are usually more granular, while Britto's are more discordant (the lines and the texture choices distinctly clash a little).

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
 
cinder said:
This is not trade dress.
You cannot patent or trademark a 'style' of design.
If Apple or the artists explicitly recreated his artwork, then yes, that falls under copyright. .
Click to expand...
Trade dress and copyright are not the same thing.

Trademark, Patents, and copyrights are all vastly different from each other.
 
AronDraws said:
If memory serves, you cannot copyright an art style. If they used his actual art, thats an issue. If it's influenced by his art, it's not something he can go after them for.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking too, it's not like it's a copy or anything.
 
d0minick said:
I own many Britto pieces. Britto is hugely popular with Disney. I thought the Apple images were Britto. IMHO he has a case and will get a settlement through his ties with Disney.

His style, again, to me, is very distinctive and popular. I don't see how any one should be allowed to copy that at such a high level such as Apple. Street venues, graffiti artist, mom & pops, then ok. But a company like Apple? No, you gotta pay.

To those that say you can't defend a style, rounded corners??? It happens.
Click to expand...

But what if this Picasso?

girl-before-a-mirror.jpg


Compare it to these....

brittocomparisonimages.jpg


I think it is fair to say that Picasso is the one that made this style popular.
 
d0minick said:
I own many Britto pieces. Britto is hugely popular with Disney. I thought the Apple images were Britto. IMHO he has a case and will get a settlement through his ties with Disney.

His style, again, to me, is very distinctive and popular. I don't see how any one should be allowed to copy that at such a high level such as Apple. Street venues, graffiti artist, mom & pops, then ok. But a company like Apple? No, you gotta pay.

To those that say you can't defend a style, rounded corners??? It happens.
Click to expand...

Apple feature someone else's artwork in an ad campaign. How is that copying anything?
 
Britto's work is clearly superior to the Craig & Karl hack jobs

while it shares some reference to cubism it's removed enough to be it's own style, and I know which of the two I'd prefer to have on my wall.

for those of you who see the same thing when looking at the two works

the level of depth in Britto's work makes it much more interesting than the flat world presented by C&K

depth is one of the hardest and most forgotten elements expressed in 2D art
 
Alumeenium said:
Britto's work is clearly superior to the Craig & Karl hack jobs

while it shares some reference to cubism it's removed enough to be it's own style, and I know which of the two I'd prefer to have on my wall.

for those of you who see the same thing when looking at the two works

the level of depth in Britto's work makes it much more interesting than the flat world presented by C&K

depth is one of the hardest and most forgotten elements expressed in 2D art
Click to expand...

This isn't about what you'd prefer though. I agree, Britto's are nicer.

This is about Britto sueing Apple over using a similar stylized artstyle in one of their marketing campaigns from a different artist / company.

this isn't about whose better. Britto is claiming they have some form of trade dress / copywrite to the style.
 
cmChimera said:
Trade dress and copyright are not the same thing.

Trademark, Patents, and copyrights are all vastly different from each other.
Click to expand...

Trade dress usually involves a claim that consumers would be confused between competing products in the market. Not sure how that would apply to Apple's ad campaign or Craig & Karl's illustration work.
 
Google is going to sue everyone using material design on their websites now.
 
diego said:
I actually cannot stand Britto and his obsession with commercializing his art to the very last drop.
Click to expand...

IMHO,

if all you're trying to do is "commercialize art" you're not an artist, you're a graphic designer.

Art to me, at least to me, usually has to contain something more personal. A message, a feeling a reason. Simply doing it to make money isn't "art"
 
Stop all paintbrushes and those pesky Illustrator crosshairs!!

If you drew strong, vibrant colors with bold black outlines, and uplifting bright images, you maybe at risk of owing Britto lots and lots of money!!

Why, you may ask?

Because no one could've ever conceived such insight, except for Mr. Britto! We all must see his squiggles and no one else's. And also, because fnck you that's why!
 
LordVic said:
IMHO,

if all you're trying to do is "commercialize art" you're not an artist, you're a graphic designer.

Art to me, at least to me, usually has to contain something more personal. A message, a feeling a reason. Simply doing it to make money isn't "art"
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The thing is that he tries to incorporate feelings and deep messages/symbolism but at the same time has his patterns plastered on Disney figurines and keychains. He's just a cheap, common business owner disguised as an artist.
 
mcdj said:
"artwork that allegedly mimics the design style that Britto is famous for."

Britto who?

"artwork that allegedly mimics the design style that Picasso was famous for."

Fixed.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when I saw Britto's work. All cubists shall be sued by Picasso's heirs!
 
As an artist, I can say this is extremely laughable and will go nowhere. You cannot claim an art style, or prevent others from drawing inspiration from you. In fact, artists are encouraged to use others' styles as inspiration, and use that to create art of their own. Nothing else to see here.

Oh, and I do think it's also ridiculous that Apple can sue another company for "rounded corners" etc. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back