diagonal characteristics
3.01.2007
Of Pirates and Plagiarists, Part 2
I had intended to follow up to my previous post about the Threadless plagiarism controversy more recently, but I didn't know what else exactly to say. Case closed, right? But I wondered: Why are we using the term plagiarism, a term with pungent academic pretensions, to talk about a silkscreened piece of cotton? Something funny is afoot.
Take this example: A certain t-shirt, shown prominently in the music video for a chart-topping summer anthem, becomes a fast-selling trend item in certain markets.
The company that manufactures this t-shirt has the legal right to protect its intellectual property. Any other party that copies the graphics on that t-shirt would be doing so in violation of copyright, and would be properly called a "counterfeiter," or more colloquially, a "bootlegger."
Not a "plagiarist."
Why the distinction? Given, in recent years, it has become increasingly viable for independent artists to produce and market their worn on t-shirts -- it's an honest way to make a buck (if you can). But within the apparel industry, and in the streetwear market in particular, artist "collaborations" [read: licensing agreements] have become more and more common. In fact, the term "collaboration" now applies to any two brands who put out merchandise together! Certain BAPE heads will argue for thousands of posts that BAPE's premium price simply reflects Nigo's artistry and originality.
It should be no surprise that this sector of the industry has taken on some of the airs of the art market.
But as for my first example: Why does the artist who drew all those bad-ass skulls only get bootlegged, rather than plagiarized? Is it because he's working as an in-house artist, beneath an art director? Is their a high vs. low culture distinction here? I blame Banksy, and why not? As the primadonna of the culturejamming set, indeed the very Warhol of the "street art" genre, his influence has fueled a steady ascent from 'transgressive' guerilla pop imagery to nu-gallery celebrity.
However! I think there are positive aspects of this trend, and it's fascinating for me to see a garment once considered underwear now engaged as an increasingly realized artistic medium. However, it's a little hard for me to reconcile the idea of t-shirt as art when it is, ultimately, consumable, and as susceptible to outdating as to wear & tear.
More thoughts later.
I had intended to follow up to my previous post about the Threadless plagiarism controversy more recently, but I didn't know what else exactly to say. Case closed, right? But I wondered: Why are we using the term plagiarism, a term with pungent academic pretensions, to talk about a silkscreened piece of cotton? Something funny is afoot.
Take this example: A certain t-shirt, shown prominently in the music video for a chart-topping summer anthem, becomes a fast-selling trend item in certain markets.
The company that manufactures this t-shirt has the legal right to protect its intellectual property. Any other party that copies the graphics on that t-shirt would be doing so in violation of copyright, and would be properly called a "counterfeiter," or more colloquially, a "bootlegger."
Not a "plagiarist."Why the distinction? Given, in recent years, it has become increasingly viable for independent artists to produce and market their worn on t-shirts -- it's an honest way to make a buck (if you can). But within the apparel industry, and in the streetwear market in particular, artist "collaborations" [read: licensing agreements] have become more and more common. In fact, the term "collaboration" now applies to any two brands who put out merchandise together! Certain BAPE heads will argue for thousands of posts that BAPE's premium price simply reflects Nigo's artistry and originality.
It should be no surprise that this sector of the industry has taken on some of the airs of the art market.
But as for my first example: Why does the artist who drew all those bad-ass skulls only get bootlegged, rather than plagiarized? Is it because he's working as an in-house artist, beneath an art director? Is their a high vs. low culture distinction here? I blame Banksy, and why not? As the primadonna of the culturejamming set, indeed the very Warhol of the "street art" genre, his influence has fueled a steady ascent from 'transgressive' guerilla pop imagery to nu-gallery celebrity.
However! I think there are positive aspects of this trend, and it's fascinating for me to see a garment once considered underwear now engaged as an increasingly realized artistic medium. However, it's a little hard for me to reconcile the idea of t-shirt as art when it is, ultimately, consumable, and as susceptible to outdating as to wear & tear.
More thoughts later.
Labels: apparel, art, commerce, controversy, culture, language, plagiarism, threadless, tshirts
¶ 21:51 1 comments
2.12.2007
12.26.2006
12.15.2006
Of Pirates and Plagarists, Part 1
WEB 2.0 FASHION OUTRAGE!
Threadless has deployed a little damage control against the recent plagiarism controversy surrounding a ripped-off design submitted by one of their users. And as much as I would love to jeer Threadless for a credibility busting faux pas (cribbing designs from stencil artists!? oh noes!), I don't think they deserve the blame for not recognizing the design as belonging to someone else. No. Part of that blame goes to the jerk who submitted the art as his own. Some more blame goes to the Threadless "opensource" business model, which, I would argue, makes the issue of plagiarism almost an inevitability.
The Threadless system of design submission and rating essentially distributes the responsibility of new product development across the entire community of Threadless users, and there doesn't seem to be much oversight of the process. Winning designers get awarded for their artwork, and consumers have the brand satisfaction of supporting independent artists, maybe voting for a shirt that eventually wins. Because everyone wins! Cool shirts! It's cooperative and social! it's hip and interactive! And the kids love it -- in all their churning enthusiasm, they don't seem to care who's skimming the cream. WTF!?
While I acknowledge Threadless compensates their winners pretty well -- the winning prize package is currently $2000 in cash and merchandise credit, a windfall for a young illustrator -- I'm more curious as to who retains the rights to the artwork: the artist? or Threadless? Wikipedia quizzically states that both the artist and Threadless retain the rights to submission artwork, though I'm not sure how that works. Are winning designs treated as commissioned works? Does the artist retain any right to license the winning work to anyone other than Threadless? Hmmm. Does Threadless pay royalties on sales? I fucking doubt it, somehow. (I'd appreciate any insider info on that, though.)
The short-sightedness of the plagiarism controversy confuses me, since the ostensible issue here is the right of an independent artist to control his/her own intellectual property -- and furthermore, who gets to profit from that intellectual property. More confusing: why would any artist be so willing to orphan their work, seeing the cash they generate for Threadless? I don't know.
¶ 01:15 1 comments
Threadless has deployed a little damage control against the recent plagiarism controversy surrounding a ripped-off design submitted by one of their users. And as much as I would love to jeer Threadless for a credibility busting faux pas (cribbing designs from stencil artists!? oh noes!), I don't think they deserve the blame for not recognizing the design as belonging to someone else. No. Part of that blame goes to the jerk who submitted the art as his own. Some more blame goes to the Threadless "opensource" business model, which, I would argue, makes the issue of plagiarism almost an inevitability.
The Threadless system of design submission and rating essentially distributes the responsibility of new product development across the entire community of Threadless users, and there doesn't seem to be much oversight of the process. Winning designers get awarded for their artwork, and consumers have the brand satisfaction of supporting independent artists, maybe voting for a shirt that eventually wins. Because everyone wins! Cool shirts! It's cooperative and social! it's hip and interactive! And the kids love it -- in all their churning enthusiasm, they don't seem to care who's skimming the cream. WTF!?
While I acknowledge Threadless compensates their winners pretty well -- the winning prize package is currently $2000 in cash and merchandise credit, a windfall for a young illustrator -- I'm more curious as to who retains the rights to the artwork: the artist? or Threadless? Wikipedia quizzically states that both the artist and Threadless retain the rights to submission artwork, though I'm not sure how that works. Are winning designs treated as commissioned works? Does the artist retain any right to license the winning work to anyone other than Threadless? Hmmm. Does Threadless pay royalties on sales? I fucking doubt it, somehow. (I'd appreciate any insider info on that, though.)
The short-sightedness of the plagiarism controversy confuses me, since the ostensible issue here is the right of an independent artist to control his/her own intellectual property -- and furthermore, who gets to profit from that intellectual property. More confusing: why would any artist be so willing to orphan their work, seeing the cash they generate for Threadless? I don't know.
¶ 01:15 1 comments
