So we won't be allowed to use bright color pattern with a thick 50 pt black line border. Nice. Cause this guy owns the universal f#@king rights? I am sorry but this style reminds me of 1990 clip art! In which there were hundreds of pieces of if not millions!
Roy Lichtenstein Foundation should sue both artists, and be done with it.
I don't see Lichtenstein in this. I happened to visit MoMA on Friday and saw his work, which I like a lot. (my daughter bought a print of one of his pieces). I definitely see the inspiration of Haring and just plain imitation of Britto.
Recall Apple/Jobs was upset about essentially competing against their own work with Samsung. That is essentially what Britto has to do here. It is almost exactly his style. Apple didn't do anything wrong, they shouldn't have to pay anything to anybody. The wrongdoers are the artists that did the copying. Apple should stop featuring their work.
I thought it was Peter Max with thicker black lines.
My immediate first reaction was that the artwork at the top of the article appeared to be art a pop art twist on The Creation Of Adam.
The artist it most reminded me of was Peter Max. I was wondering if I was the only one that saw this. I assumed no one else noticed it because they were too young to remember Peter Max.
Additionally I noticed a significant influence by Picasso. How can someone whose art is so derivative claim trade dress infringement? I'm not saying his work isn't original and pleasing, it's just he shouldn't be able to claim that he alone owns the right to copy his predecessors.
Don't you folks remember the horrible travails of the late 1800's, when all the Impressionists
were suing each other, willy nilly, <span style="line-height:1.4em;">all the time?</span>
He is a widely respected Brazilian artist and the copycat issue is blatantly clear. Besides, this is exactly what trade dress is about: protection of expression of ideas that result in clear trade identities, not protection of ideas themselves.
Apple should just pay and STFU.
Actually, you should STFU. How predictably pathetic that you come down on the side against Apple no matter what the issue is, each and every time. There is no absolutely case here, and you know that. Really, you think Apple should be sued for comissioning the work of an artist whose style "may, kinda, but not really" looks like some other artist? Yet, you bashed Apple to no end during the lawsuit with Samsung, claiming their claims of infringement were baseless.
Seriously, people like you are so full of it. What has Apple done to you, anyway? You're dripping with so much hate towards the company, and enter every thread only to spit hateful vitriol towards them. Do people actually hire you to represent them? Not only are you a relentless troll, you seem to know nothing about how the law should work, have zero objectivity, yet claim you're a lawyer. I don't believe you are a legitimate, practising lawyer for a second.
He is a widely respected Brazilian artist and the copycat issue is blatantly clear. Besides, this is exactly what trade dress is about: protection of expression of ideas that result in clear trade identities, not protection of ideas themselves.
Apple should just pay and STFU.
i am not remembering apple saying anything on the matter. so please, take your own advice
Difference is Craig and Karl have been doing their art for years. Its not like they just were asked by Apple to copy Britto.
Plus the style of art that Britto uses is NOT original. This style has been around for DECADES.
Well yes, it's been around for decades: he initiated it and it's a prolongation of pop art. But whereas Craig&Karl are disturbingly close to Britto, Britto is for off from e.g. liechtenstein or Warhol.
The guy has a case: maybe not against Apple but he certainly has a case
While this has very little to do with Apple, it's still amusing to see some of the ridiculous things people sue each other over.
It's needless to say that Britto filing this complaint is a bad move, likely forced upon him for pride/reputational reasons and definitely not by merit.
These 2 picasso's are good examples why Picasso is Picasso and a Britto a Britto. Showing these 2, you make Britto win (to start with: Britto doesn't use negative space and Picasso's colors are more pastel)
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The trade dress filing of </span> "strong, fanciful, non-functional, and inherently distinctive," composed of vibrant color combinations, the juxtaposition of different patterns, bold black outlines, and "uplifting, bright and happy visual themes."
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The idea that the defence is not going to find other art that satisfies this set is farcical, Britto is about to inflict a lot of reputational damage upon himself.</span>
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.
Add Keith Haring to the list as well.
Seriously, Britto might be a 'creative entrepreneur', he clearly is not an original artist. Craig & Karl actually got better taste.
sog-- So let's assume his art begins to be copied and used by numerous other companies. When does look-alike uses, cross the line? An artist needs protections as much as any company needs protection or his art becomes so commonly available the value of his art is lowered. He may not win, but he has the right to sue, just as you would if you could, as anyone could, if they felt the need.
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.
I think what potentially makes his style unique is his overlapping of shapes combined with the change of coloration and patterns within the overlapped area.
For example, in the heart image, above, what look to be rays of light from a setting sun intersect the heart and within each intersecting area, he uses a different color and pattern.
In the second image, of the eagle, note where the beak is intersected by a triangle. That portion of the beak within the triangle is colored and patterned differently than the portion not intersecting the triangle.
In tne rightmost image, of the flower, he's got a square intersecting the right petal, and, true to form, the portion of the petal intersecting the square is colored differently.
This is the element he might be able to claim is unique to his style, to which I say, "so what?" And to which I also say, "I see none of this in the example given in the article of the asserted copyright infringing Apple marketing campaign artwork." In that piece, heavy black lines are used to segment an element, like the hand, into multiple sections, but no sections intersect a different element with a different color or pattern in the shared intersecting space. Throughout the piece, there are segments that lay over other segments, as though they were placed one atop another, but none of the illusion that two or more segments occupy and share the same layer in the scene, as is the illusion his artwork generates. The use of layered segments, as utilized in the Apple marketing artwork and that are distinct is as common as a child's paint-by-numbers picture. And it's a stretch to suggest that one artist could dictate or restrict the weight of lines used to delineate those segments. I see no basis for a lawsuit here.
The last Image of Mickey Mouse. isn't that Copy Protected by Disney? That's more of a copy then the mickey on the right. None of these Images look like a copy anyway.
My immediate first reaction was that the artwork at the top of the article appeared to be art a pop art twist on The Creation Of Adam.
The artist it most reminded me of was Peter Max. I was wondering if I was the only one that saw this. I assumed no one else noticed it because they were too young to remember Peter Max.
Additionally I noticed a significant influence by Picasso. How can someone whose art is so derivative claim trade dress infringement? I'm not saying his work isn't original and pleasing, it's just he shouldn't be able to claim that he alone owns the right to copy his predecessors.
I believe you have it switched here. The artwork at the top of the article is by Craig & Karl. And while possibly influenced by Picasso, neither Craig & Karl nor Picasso are claiming infringement. It's Britto who's claiming infringement.
And looking at Romero's artwork on Google I see the use of Disney characters, the McDonald's logo, Michael Jackson, etc. etc. etc. - and I'm sure he hasn't lifted those images without permission or compensation to the owners. Right.
A local street artist's work was similarly ripped off by a major retail chain last year.
That case was very different. the company photographed their models directly in front of the artist's mural, used the photographs in their campaigns, recreated the art to use as part of their campaign, hired artists in another country to directly copy the exact art and did all this without the artists permission or even crediting the artist. I'm saying all this assuming that you're talking about Ahol vs American Eagle
I believe you have it switched here. The artwork at the top of the article is by Craig & Karl. And while possibly influenced by Picasso, neither Craig & Karl nor Picasso are claiming infringement. It's Britto who's claiming infringement.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I had it right in my head, it just didn't come out that way. My first two observations were about the Craig & Karl piece. I was attempting to show that that piece was more reminiscent of other artists works, more so than resembling the work of Britto. The last comment was about the pictures of Britto's art that was posted - while it too reminded me of the work of Peter Max, it additionally reminded me of Picasso's work. Sometimes I don't say what I thought I said, so thanks.
Comments
I thought it was Peter Max with thicker black lines.
I don't see Lichtenstein in this. I happened to visit MoMA on Friday and saw his work, which I like a lot. (my daughter bought a print of one of his pieces). I definitely see the inspiration of Haring and just plain imitation of Britto.
Recall Apple/Jobs was upset about essentially competing against their own work with Samsung. That is essentially what Britto has to do here. It is almost exactly his style. Apple didn't do anything wrong, they shouldn't have to pay anything to anybody. The wrongdoers are the artists that did the copying. Apple should stop featuring their work.
Don't you folks remember the horrible travails of the late 1800's, when all the Impressionists
were suing each other, willy nilly, all the time?
The duels?
The feuds?
The vendettas?
...I didn't think so.
The artist it most reminded me of was Peter Max. I was wondering if I was the only one that saw this. I assumed no one else noticed it because they were too young to remember Peter Max.
Additionally I noticed a significant influence by Picasso. How can someone whose art is so derivative claim trade dress infringement? I'm not saying his work isn't original and pleasing, it's just he shouldn't be able to claim that he alone owns the right to copy his predecessors.
Now we know who's Britto's lawyer is.
Are you preparing for your ban after Apple sells 15 million watches?
Unfortunately, this guy will never ban himself. If the mods do ban him, he will re-appear under a different name.
He is a widely respected Brazilian artist and the copycat issue is blatantly clear. Besides, this is exactly what trade dress is about: protection of expression of ideas that result in clear trade identities, not protection of ideas themselves.
Apple should just pay and STFU.
Actually, you should STFU. How predictably pathetic that you come down on the side against Apple no matter what the issue is, each and every time. There is no absolutely case here, and you know that. Really, you think Apple should be sued for comissioning the work of an artist whose style "may, kinda, but not really" looks like some other artist? Yet, you bashed Apple to no end during the lawsuit with Samsung, claiming their claims of infringement were baseless.
Seriously, people like you are so full of it. What has Apple done to you, anyway? You're dripping with so much hate towards the company, and enter every thread only to spit hateful vitriol towards them. Do people actually hire you to represent them? Not only are you a relentless troll, you seem to know nothing about how the law should work, have zero objectivity, yet claim you're a lawyer. I don't believe you are a legitimate, practising lawyer for a second.
He is a widely respected Brazilian artist and the copycat issue is blatantly clear. Besides, this is exactly what trade dress is about: protection of expression of ideas that result in clear trade identities, not protection of ideas themselves.
Apple should just pay and STFU.
i am not remembering apple saying anything on the matter. so please, take your own advice
Well yes, it's been around for decades: he initiated it and it's a prolongation of pop art. But whereas Craig&Karl are disturbingly close to Britto, Britto is for off from e.g. liechtenstein or Warhol.
The guy has a case: maybe not against Apple but he certainly has a case
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.
Add Keith Haring to the list as well.
Seriously, Britto might be a 'creative entrepreneur', he clearly is not an original artist. Craig & Karl actually got better taste.
Keith Haring:
Roy Liechtenstein:
Picasso:
sog-- So let's assume his art begins to be copied and used by numerous other companies. When does look-alike uses, cross the line? An artist needs protections as much as any company needs protection or his art becomes so commonly available the value of his art is lowered. He may not win, but he has the right to sue, just as you would if you could, as anyone could, if they felt the need.
I think what potentially makes his style unique is his overlapping of shapes combined with the change of coloration and patterns within the overlapped area.
For example, in the heart image, above, what look to be rays of light from a setting sun intersect the heart and within each intersecting area, he uses a different color and pattern.
In the second image, of the eagle, note where the beak is intersected by a triangle. That portion of the beak within the triangle is colored and patterned differently than the portion not intersecting the triangle.
In tne rightmost image, of the flower, he's got a square intersecting the right petal, and, true to form, the portion of the petal intersecting the square is colored differently.
This is the element he might be able to claim is unique to his style, to which I say, "so what?" And to which I also say, "I see none of this in the example given in the article of the asserted copyright infringing Apple marketing campaign artwork." In that piece, heavy black lines are used to segment an element, like the hand, into multiple sections, but no sections intersect a different element with a different color or pattern in the shared intersecting space. Throughout the piece, there are segments that lay over other segments, as though they were placed one atop another, but none of the illusion that two or more segments occupy and share the same layer in the scene, as is the illusion his artwork generates. The use of layered segments, as utilized in the Apple marketing artwork and that are distinct is as common as a child's paint-by-numbers picture. And it's a stretch to suggest that one artist could dictate or restrict the weight of lines used to delineate those segments. I see no basis for a lawsuit here.
Here are some comparison shots by the plantiff
Not good enough to sue IMO.
The last Image of Mickey Mouse. isn't that Copy Protected by Disney? That's more of a copy then the mickey on the right. None of these Images look like a copy anyway.
My immediate first reaction was that the artwork at the top of the article appeared to be art a pop art twist on The Creation Of Adam.
The artist it most reminded me of was Peter Max. I was wondering if I was the only one that saw this. I assumed no one else noticed it because they were too young to remember Peter Max.
Additionally I noticed a significant influence by Picasso. How can someone whose art is so derivative claim trade dress infringement? I'm not saying his work isn't original and pleasing, it's just he shouldn't be able to claim that he alone owns the right to copy his predecessors.
I believe you have it switched here. The artwork at the top of the article is by Craig & Karl. And while possibly influenced by Picasso, neither Craig & Karl nor Picasso are claiming infringement. It's Britto who's claiming infringement.
That case was very different. the company photographed their models directly in front of the artist's mural, used the photographs in their campaigns, recreated the art to use as part of their campaign, hired artists in another country to directly copy the exact art and did all this without the artists permission or even crediting the artist. I'm saying all this assuming that you're talking about Ahol vs American Eagle