Artist sues Apple over alleged copycat work in 'Start Something New' marketing
Artist Romero Britto earlier this month filed a lawsuit against Apple and an artistic duo, Craig & Karl, claiming they violated trade dress through artwork featured in Apple's "Start Something New" marketing campaign.
The Craig & Karl piece is featured in one section of the campaign's official website, which promotes the artistic uses of Apple devices in tandem with various apps. In particular, Craig & Karl are described using painting app Waterlogue on the iPad Air 2. The artwork has also been featured in Apple Stores -- in court documents filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, lawyers for Britto say that people contacted him thinking he had done the work himself.
"These reports ranged from, for example, incorrect congratulations on Mr. Britto's new deal with Apple, to consternation from business partners in potentially collaborative or competing product categories, to inquiries from collectors wanting to know if the image they saw in the Apple store or on the Apple website was by Romero Britto," the documents read.
This, in turn, led to Britto discovering that Craig & Karl had been making similar art for years. The court filing describes Britto's trade dress as involving bright colors, thick black lines, and combinations of different patterns in upbeat themes.
Britto is said to have contacted Apple and asked them to stop using the Craig & Karl art, but has not received a response. The artist's lawyers are seeking damages, legal fees, and an injunction against Apple from using the offending art and Craig & Karl from producing imitation work.
The Craig & Karl piece is featured in one section of the campaign's official website, which promotes the artistic uses of Apple devices in tandem with various apps. In particular, Craig & Karl are described using painting app Waterlogue on the iPad Air 2. The artwork has also been featured in Apple Stores -- in court documents filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, lawyers for Britto say that people contacted him thinking he had done the work himself.
"These reports ranged from, for example, incorrect congratulations on Mr. Britto's new deal with Apple, to consternation from business partners in potentially collaborative or competing product categories, to inquiries from collectors wanting to know if the image they saw in the Apple store or on the Apple website was by Romero Britto," the documents read.
This, in turn, led to Britto discovering that Craig & Karl had been making similar art for years. The court filing describes Britto's trade dress as involving bright colors, thick black lines, and combinations of different patterns in upbeat themes.
Britto is said to have contacted Apple and asked them to stop using the Craig & Karl art, but has not received a response. The artist's lawyers are seeking damages, legal fees, and an injunction against Apple from using the offending art and Craig & Karl from producing imitation work.
Comments
This, in turn, led to Britto discovering that Craig & Karl had been making similar art for years. The court filing describes Britto's trade dress as involving bright colors, thick black lines, and combinations of different patterns in upbeat themes.
Seriously? So only this clown is allowed to make art with bright colors, thick black lines, and upbeat themes?
Ridiculous.
Yeah, and he is suing the deepest pockets involved which goes to motive. If anything, the estate of Andy Warhol should be along any minute now wanting their cut off of both artists.
Rounded rectangles, anyone?
Given that Craig and Karl have apparently been producing similar art for years before partnering with Apple, I highly doubt that that is the case here.
This guy might have a case if they were copying some specific piece of his work, but I have a hard time believing that he can sue them over having a similar style.
Apple should take the work down if it was plagerised.
http://www.britto.com/front/originals I've seen children draw like this. What gives him the right to be the only one who can, as sog35 states, draw "with bright colors, thick black lines, and upbeat themes?" If you look at stylistic stained glass artwork, this is how it would be done. Nothing on his gallery showed any hands.
This guy might have a case if they were copying some specific piece of his work, but I have a hard time believing that he can sue them over having a similar style.
Actually, the Estate of Marvin Gaye successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song "Blurred Lines," because it had a similar style. I listened to the two songs back to back and didn't really hear it myself. . . . so I don't have a hard time believing this guy can prevail in his lawsuit.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/entertainment/blurred-lines-lawyer-billboard-feat/
Every single stained glass window in existence is a collection of centuries of prior art...
Now if his actual designs have been reproduced, that's a violation.
Britto is stupid to sue Apple. You can be sure that Apple will use some top notch lawyers.
So obvious this is a money grab by Britto. If he was truly concerned about his art only he would have sued Craig and Karl years ago.
Perhaps more of a publicity grab?
hopping on the Apple public awareness bandwagon for a bit of a free ride?
There is nothing remotely similar between these two styles of artwork other than color. Mr. Britto has done a blatant job of copying his cubist predecessors. Perhaps there should be a new term "artist troll."
Oh... just like the art that the late Roy Lichtenstein had been doing for years before that!
I wish the article would post a side by side comparison.
Britto's work can be found here. Kind of a combination of Lichtenstein, Picasso, and Warhol. Don't think he has a case unless there's a piece of his which has direct similarities that I'm not seeing.
Stained glass window makers are probably wondering about suing him! Nice stuff though, I like his work.
That's my guess.
Actually, the Estate of Marvin Gaye successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song "Blurred Lines," because it had a similar style. I listened to the two songs back to back and didn't really hear it myself. . . .
You seriously couldn't hear the similarities between Got To Give It Up and Blurred Lines? That one was a no brainer for me, but this one is a stretch for sure.
Britto needs to stop copying Picasso.
I may have exaggerated my level of diligence. I listened to the 90 sec previews in iTunes. In any event, you reinforce my point that similarities are enough to prevail in a lawsuit. I don't think this one is a stretch at all. One could easily think that the images were produced by the original artist.
I may have exaggerated my level of diligence. I listened to the 90 sec previews in iTunes. In any event, you reinforce my point that similarities are enough to prevail in a lawsuit. I don't think this one is a stretch at all. One could easily think that the images were produced by the original artist.
But in this case, the image in question is just using a similar style. One which has been used by plenty of artists before Britto. If the underlying image being created was the same (or close to) one by Britto that I don't know about, then I'd say he has a case. But if it's just based on the style, then I don't think he'll win.
Mr Britto should stick to making water filters.