INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Tom Ford or Tom Fraud

In my opinion, fashion is the most repetitive industry, in order to be 'in fashion' you need to copy someone or something. Even those who think they have set a new trend have probably got some kind of inspiration somewhere, somehow.

I once heard someone say 'All designs are derivatives of something you have subconsciously seen'. Tom Ford may have taken this too far with his 'Numéro Russia' campaign.

The photograph that Tom Ford used features Pat Cleveland straddling Conrad Bromfield, who is on his hands and knees. This image is incredibly similar to Marko Kalfa's photo from 2012.

Below are the two photo's

Marko Kalfa's Photo on right - Tom Ford's Photo on Left

What makes the tale even more interesting is that Cleveland features in both images,
and the male model (Marcin) featured in Tom Fords 'Copy' is in fact Kalfa's assistant.

Luckily for Ford, he is most likely in the clear from any court cases.
The reason for this is that there needs to be protectable elements directly copied in the photograph.

Although at first glance they are practically identical; the background, facial expressions and distance from the camera are not alike. And a main factor to consider is that a female model riding a male model on all fours is a common pose.

This is a good example of the relaxed laws of the Fashion industry, which make copying designs easier than ever. Companies take advantage of this by creating 'fakes' or 1:1 replica's of products and conning the public to make quick money.

You can witness this by simply walking along the main strip of Camden and looking into the stores only to see Gucci Bags, Yeezy's and Rolex's for a small fee of £25 ("I'll do you two for £35!!")

This has been the situation for years, and many more years to come.

LOOK-A-NIKE

Nike is definitely a brand I wouldn't expect to be on the 'wrong' end of an intellectual property case.

Nike apparently owes the base creation of the 'Jumpman' logo, a silhouetted image of Michael Jordan, legs spread and arm extended, to a photograph taken by LIFE magazine.

Original on left – Nike's version for an ad campaign on right

The picture above shows a side by side comparison of Rentmeester's photograph of Jordan and Nikes version of the basketball star.
The similarity is definitely there and it was not appreciated by Rentmeester. 
Appropriately enough, Rentmeester complained to Nike that the image was essentially a duplicate of his, to which Nike paid him $15,000 to keep using the photo they had created.

The fine print of this invoice stated that the image could be used only in North America for two years with all other rights reserved by Rentmeester.

The silhouetted logo that derived from the image was created in 1987 and is still being used to this day.

After billions in sales, Rentmeester wants a share of the money that Nike has made.

This could be a serious annoyance for the brand as the logo is such a big part of the brand that a temporary injunction to stop Nike from using the image would be a problem, Considering that a pair of Jordans without the logo is almost worth nothing.

However, despite all of this hassle, the case is similar to Tom Ford's. In the sense that Rentmeester does not have ownership of Jordans appearance.

I cant help to think how many unrecognised creators of brand identities are out there, unpaid and uncredited.