Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think you're using the right criteria to judge the C&K work though. It's not a question of which you'd rather have on your wall, but, in the case of the C&K, does it serve the purposes of the ad? C&K is sweet and smooth. I agree, there's not much depth. But I don't think that's bad for what it is meant for. I think it's meant as tasty eye-candy and does a good job at that.
In this case, it's confusion over the art. I'm not picking any sides here, but the question is whether or not the Craig and Karl's art is likely to cause confusion with Britto's art. Apple is using the campaign to sell products, and if they're doing that with trade dress infringing art, that's why they're being dragged in.
Like I said, I don't know nor really care if Britto will win, but a lot of people are framing the question wrong. It's not about whether anyone copied(copyright) anyone, and not about patents either. It's about the likelihood of confusion.
I love how everyone is suddenly an art critic and/or expert around here. 
I will say I am not at all surprised that he sued. Britto has galleries on several Royal Caribbean cruise ships, and they have several signs telling people to not take pictures of the art. If you are seen with so much as a cell phone camera within a few feet of the door to the gallery you're asked to leave. Kind on ironic in a place like a cruise ship if you ask me.
I will say I am not at all surprised that he sued. Britto has galleries on several Royal Caribbean cruise ships, and they have several signs telling people to not take pictures of the art. If you are seen with so much as a cell phone camera within a few feet of the door to the gallery you're asked to leave. Kind on ironic in a place like a cruise ship if you ask me.
Last edited:
I could care less whether Apple is involved in this suit, but I come from a family of artists and have artists who work for me directly, and if you could effectively sue someone for working in an art style similar to your own, literally 99% of artists who are now alive or have ever lived--at minimum--would be prime fodder for such lawsuits.
Britto, for example, is blatantly derivative of Picasso--which is fine. That's how art works. I could probably find twenty other neo-cubist painters whose work also looks similar, some who've been working longer than Britto, some younger. That's how art works. Heck, Osamu Tezuka's estate could sue pretty much the entire Japanese manga industry, and a decent number of international artists and animators as well. But they don't, because it's stupid, and that's not how art works.
If the designers in question had been exactly copying particular paintings by Britto in this case--which even the posted examples make clear they're not--then there might be grounds for a suit. And you could certainly fault them for being jerks and making a DIY version instead of hiring the original artist if they liked his style. But a lawsuit over stylistic similarity? That's utterly ridiculous.
Britto, for example, is blatantly derivative of Picasso--which is fine. That's how art works. I could probably find twenty other neo-cubist painters whose work also looks similar, some who've been working longer than Britto, some younger. That's how art works. Heck, Osamu Tezuka's estate could sue pretty much the entire Japanese manga industry, and a decent number of international artists and animators as well. But they don't, because it's stupid, and that's not how art works.
If the designers in question had been exactly copying particular paintings by Britto in this case--which even the posted examples make clear they're not--then there might be grounds for a suit. And you could certainly fault them for being jerks and making a DIY version instead of hiring the original artist if they liked his style. But a lawsuit over stylistic similarity? That's utterly ridiculous.
More like sues everyone else who uses an image of a melted... anything...
It's not even the same subject matter. Just created in the style. It'd be like Koonz suing me for making a shiny basketball sculpture.
It's derivative and thus less interesting as an art piece... but it's not illegal.
I love how everyone is suddenly an art critic and/or expert around here.
I will say I am not at all surprised that he sued. Britto has galleries on several Royal Carribean cruise ships, and they have several signs telling people to not take pictures of the art. If you are seen with so much as a cell phone camera within a few feet of the door to the gallery you're asked to leave. Kind on ironic in a place like a cruise ship if you ask me.
Okay, but Apple did not use Britto's art. They didn't even use a knockoff of his art. They used a completely different painting that had a similar art style. That is not a basis for a copyright claim.
Now if Apple used Britto's art without permission, or C&K blatantly ripped off Britto's art by basically recreating his pieces, then he would have a case. But as it stands, he does not. That's not how art works.
To my knowledge--and I could be wrong, if you're aware of cases stating otherwise--it's ridiculous to try and sue because someone else's art might be confused for your own based purely on stylistic similarities. There are literally thousands of artists whose work is stylistically similar to, or functionally identical, artists who came before them, and I am not personally aware of a single lawsuit (or at least not a successful one) on those grounds.
I could easily have confused Britto's work for Duane Flatmo's more abstract work, if I wasn't paying too much attention, but I wouldn't expect Flatmo to sue Britto, because they both look like Picasso. And if Picasso were still alive I wouldn't expect him to try and sue either Britto or Flatmo, even though their work could be confused with his, because all art is derivative. Again, that's how art works.
Yeah, but trade dress typically requires some type of consumer confusion between products being sold. Britto would need to provide examples of specific products bearing his art style that could be confused with specific products bearing the Craig & Karl style. I don't think you can make that type of claim if it's just an art director who wants to hire an illustrator.
Apple didn't copy any artist, because Apple didn't paint anything. Craig & Karl are the artists. Nice try though
Is this lawsuit any different from music lawsuits? A lot of people are writing this lawsuit off saying "you can't copyright a style", yet musicians win these types of lawsuits even though the 2 songs in question are never 100% exactly the same, note-for-note. Where do you draw the line between just copying the style (or being influenced by it) and copying the work itself?
I'm really curious here. I'm not taking one side or another. I'm just curious if there's a difference when it comes to painted art lawsuits like this and music art lawsuits of the same nature.
I'm really curious here. I'm not taking one side or another. I'm just curious if there's a difference when it comes to painted art lawsuits like this and music art lawsuits of the same nature.
Honestly, I have no idea where the line is drawn or how people decide what is copying "too much". However like I stated above, I am an artist, and I feel very strongly about this. I don't believe you can claim a style, just an individual piece. Be it a painting, a music composition, or even a phone's rounded corners. If anything, you should be flattered if someone takes inspiration from your style.
I'm not taking Apple's side on this, in fact I don't care about Apple at all in this case. They aren't even involved in this as far as I'm concerned. I'm siding with Craig & Karl because art shouldn't be restricted so severely that you have to make sure your work looks/sounds NOTHING like any other piece out there.
I am an artist and very sensitive to having an artist's pilfered and there is a significant difference between the Apple art and Britto's art. There are similarities between Britto and Lichtenstein, Mondrian, Miro, Matisse... Should they all sue Britto?
I live in Miami and have to tolerate this cabrão's "work" almost everywhere. Hope this gets thrown out.
