Art Meets Fashion With Yves Klein 1960 & Céline SS||2017 Runway Collection

The Céline Spring/Summer 2017 collection, presented at the Tennis Club de Paris, featured a well known image on the garment from the Artist Yves Klein's estate.

A quick reflection with regard to the legalities of using this image. From experience as an academic and researcher on these matters, this is usually achieved through a licensing deal. The image Anthropométrie de l'Époque bleue was created in 1960 so copyright still subsists in the image (lasting for the life of the author + 70 years).  Therefore the fashion house would have ideally licensed the right to use this image on this dress from the Klein estate. This is a common practice. Last year, I won the AHRC researchers-in-residence award for a placement to work with DACS the Design and Copyright Artists Society the visual artists rights management organisation that represents over 90,000 artists worldwide. DACS represents, artists like Damien Hirst and notable others.  They work toward transforming the financial landscape for visual artists through products and campaigns that champion IP rights for the sustained and vital contribution of artists in the creative economy.

During my time at DACS I focused on the management and monetization of artist’s creativity through art/fashion collaborations.

It was frequent for established fashion houses to call up explaining that they wanted to use an iconic or late artists image in their couture of RTW collections, and with DACS being an artists rights management organisation, the call was often to discuss how the fashion house could go about licensing the artists IP.

In today’s current climate, it would seem that many contemporary artists are starting to operate like fashion designers and embracing the commerciality of their work and new business models that allow them to continue to monetise their IP.

The merging of fashion and art often appears to be a creative endeavour - however in reality these interactions may be more appropriately viewed as commercial ones. Where both the fashion designer and the artist get to benefit.

Balenciaga Collection FW1965 [Left] vs. Maison Margiela Couture FW2015 [Right] | Inspiration or Imitation

John Galliano has recently showcased his second artisanal collection for Maison Margiela, during Paris fashion week. The exhibition of Maison Margiela's Haute Couture Autumn/Winter 15 collection showcased some of the designers masterful craftsmanship in an exciting show that included men clothed in dresses, shoes with circular blades, sackcloths, and influences of impressionist art.

It takes a lot for designers to be noticed these days and the collection from Galliano drove a postive  impression after the designers four year exile from fashion, following his antisemitic outburst in 2011. Resulting in a lawsuit between the House of Dior & Galliano (Feb 2015) for wrongful dismissal.

Yet, admist all the applauds of creative genius for the looks strutted down the Parisian runway this July. We did notice one design that bears a striking similarity to the 'Petale Dress' from Balenciaga's 'Invierno collection 1965.' Raising those not so easy to answer questions about designer inspiration and direct imitation.

We'd like to know your thoughts?

Art Impressionism in Fashion | Maison Margiela's Haute Couture AW15 Collection

Fascinating this #parisfashionweek is the designer JohnGalliano’s second artisanal collection for Maison Margiela.

The presentation of Maison Margiela's Haute Couture Autumn/Winter 15 collection looked toward the world of art masters with a signal to the work of French artist, Matisse, inspired and influenced by Impressionist art. A collection worthy of copyright protection, in its own right.

How the Artist Richard Price stole from Instagram, and re-sold other peoples images for $100,000

Copyright Law & Instagram Art

Pushing the boundaries of copyright law, the latest exhibition by New York based artist Richard Prince is raising eyebrows in the art world. Why? Because he's selling canvases that feature other people's Instagram photos. The exhibition "New Portraits," first exhibited at the Gagosian Gallery in New York last year, showcase photographs of subjects that were not shot by Prince himself. But instead feature images that users of the social networking site Instagram have uploaded to the social media platform, that have then been printed out onto large canvasses, Each piece features an added comment from @richardprince1234 below the picture.

Gothamist reports, that the artworks are selling in New York for around $100,000 (£64,000) each of both famous people such as Kate Moss, Pamela Anderson, singer Sky Ferreira, art dealer Tony Shafrazi and model Lara Stone and non-famous people.

One subject of the photos, DoeDeere, confirmed on Instagram that Prince did not seek permission before showcasing one of her images. She posted on Instagram: "yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it's just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway."

She said the canvass featuring her portrait sold for $90,000 (£57,500).

For those acquainted with Prince's work, what he has done here – taking others' images and then displaying them as his own, is nothing new. Before Prince, artists like Andy Warhol did the same, using other people’s photographs in their works via the use of silkscreening. Yet Prince work remains too often controversial, showing very little evidence of any transformation of the original work, which raises copyright law issues, particularly with regard to issues of originality and authorship of his work. This is not the first time that Princes work has raised questions of copyright laws. According to Petapixel, Prince is: "notorious in the art world for taking other people’s work, 'appropriating' them as his own with various changes, and then selling them for large amounts of dough."

So is Prince actually breaking the law? If the artists were to make perfect replicas, it would be a clear infringement of the original artists' rights. However, fair use may apply if the work is "transformative." There is some suggestion that Mr Prince may have bypassed copyrighting laws by removing the images' original Instagram captions and adding his own words. But the question here with regard to the minor changes Prince adds to each original Instagram photo, is whether Prince’s additional comments, are "transformative" of the original work enough to meet the standard of fair use?

Unless the artists Richard Prince is formally challenged in court. We won’t fully know the legality of his actions. In 2013, a US court ruled that his "Canal Zone" artworks, which were based on earlier photos from photographer Patrick Cariou, constituted fair use. Prince’s usage of Cariou’s photos was determined to be copyright infringement back in 2011, but an appeals court overturned the ruling in 2013, calling the appropriation “fair use.” The courts taking into account the remix culture we live in.

[Left ] Cariou’s Original Photo [Right] Prince’s Artwork & Fair Use