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

foobarbazqux said:
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.
Click to expand...

With music you also can't copyright a style. Cases are won when there are specific melodic similarities that can be pointed out and the two pieces are very similar.

The Blurred Lines case was a notable exception and many disagree with the outcome and think it may be overturned if there's an appeal. Honestly I think the main reason they lost that one was because they said in interviews that they intentionally tried to make a song similar to the one they were sued over - they admitted to it even though theirs wasn't really that similar.

So again, you can't copyright a style whether it be art or music.
 
Dagless said:
Samsung copies Apple: BURN SAMSUNG TO THE GROUND
Apple copies an artist: Eh it's not really similar, it's fair use, you can't copyright style.

Signed,
A Macrumors Member
Click to expand...

Well, there is a slight, slight, inaccuracy here: Apple didn't copy any artist. Another artist is _accused_ of copying. But from the pictures that we have seen, this is clearly wrong.
 
Many artists have been copied thousands of times in Art History but the original and inspiration are always known. The problem is in the Apple disclose in its campaign the copy as authentic.
 
Nuvi said:
EDIT: The idiot is actually promoting himself how his work is so close to Picasso's art. http://www.britto.com/portuguese/downloads/newsandevents/articles/Britto-Picasso-USAweb.pdf
Click to expand...
Ouch.

Literally publishing a PDF on your own website calling yourself "The New Picasso", which includes side-by-side comparisons of your work with similar-looking Picasso works as an ad for yourself, then suing somebody because they paint something in a similar style to you, is about as knowingly craven as it gets.

Or does he just think it's okay when he uses the same style as a dead guy, but when somebody does it to him it's time for a lawsuit.
 
Michael Goff said:
Flip the lawsuit around and the posts would be different.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this.

----------

Lol and this is some **** I could see Apple doing to somebody else smh lol

----------
k995 said:
funny most comments here.

Apple sues samsung for imitating/copying its style-> how dare samsung, copycat ***** sue them for every penny, kill them.

Artists sues apple for imitating/copying his style-> idiot, you cant copy style .
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy is hilarious tbh lol. But it is what it is
 
MacVista said:
Brito's work is repetitive, predictable, and too commercial.
If anything, Apple gave Britto a free product placement.
His work was interesting 30 years ago while it still was a novelty.

Britto should just get an App for that and move on.
Click to expand...

Thank you!!!! Same ***** I'm saying. Britto is everywhere and it's become the next Ed Hardy. Who cares. Continue making key chains and mugs.
 
For everyone saying "you can't copyright an art style", yes you can. It's called a *trade dress* as the article itself mentions, and is covered by IP laws in most countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

Romero Britto's "art" only made him famous because he successfully turned it into a finely-tuned commercial operation. It's a business, very little artistry involved. Same rules apply as if Apple wanted to use Marvel characters to promote the iPad. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a settlement out of this.
 
When I seen that I was like oh it's that one artist, they probably outsourced some design work to him. If this was the works of an agency they use/d, not sure if TBWA\Chiat\Day is their ad agency. A lot of work that comes out of large ad agencies these days is either copied (ripped off) or outsourced again, which that person/shop could have been informed by the first agency to make it like Britto's.

Not trying to defend Apple but if I were Apple I' be ticked if the ad agency did this and created a verbatim piece of art work. Also could have been Apple that instructed an internal art director or agency to be inspired by the artist. With that said, I'm 50/50 on this subject because it's so blatant these days.

Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal

I think people took Steve Jobs too literal with that comment I linked.
 
Then shouldn't this artist sue the other artist instead?
And then get Apple to remove those art when this artist actually win in court.

This looks more like trying to sue the deep pockets...
 
Damn it!

That means nobody can paint using bright colors and strong lines???

I guess Britto would have to sue all the KIDS IN THE WORLD!!! :D
 
The images don't look that similar, and I've seen lots of artwork like that before. Unless everywhere I've seen it, Britto has designed it, I doubt he can make a strong case that he created the style AND that his style was stolen. It looks like he at most has his own distinct version of that Picasso-like style, but Craig & Karl didn't copy it.

----------
AppleScruff1 said:
This is as bad as suing over a rectangle with rounded corners.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're referring to Apple suing over iPhone designs. This could be as bad as that, except I really don't see enough resemblance to suspect copying. I also have no idea how art copyright works because it seems like artists freely copy each other.

----------
Michael Goff said:
Flip the lawsuit around and the posts would be different.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Also, flip the lawsuit around, and you wouldn't say that it would be different if it were flipped.
 
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...

I see the similarity, but I don't see the problem. I'm betting this is just an attention grab and the lawsuit will die quickly. But boy will you have the last laugh if we are wrong.
 
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...

I was thinking the same thing
 
liavman said:
At least they are not asking Apple to stop selling the iPads. That treacherous practice was there with every patent law suit, including the ones filed by Apple.
Click to expand...

Yea, really. Apple sues Samsung for ripping off their designs, or art I guess you could say. I hope this guy wins.
 
B4U said:
Then shouldn't this artist sue the other artist instead?
And then get Apple to remove those art when this artist actually win in court.

This looks more like trying to sue the deep pockets...
Click to expand...

He's suing the artists too.

The lawsuit, levied at both Craig & Karl and Apple, accuses the two artists of violating the Britto trade dress and targets Apple because Britto became aware of the copycat art through Apple's recent promotion.
Click to expand...

The idiot is actually promoting himself how his work is so close to Picasso's art. http://www.britto.com/portuguese/dow...sso-USAweb.pdf
Click to expand...

I hope Apple and Craig & Karl's lawyers have a copy of this.
 
cmChimera said:
You can protect it with trade dress though, which is what the article is actually about.
Click to expand...

It's not attached to anything so he has no trade dress.

If Google was using his art to advertise then Google would potentially have a claim against apple but the artists on either side would still not have a claim.
 
Releitura!!

8492941165_2f92cc776d.jpg
 
Last edited:
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