Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[LostInNJ]

Wow, some of these brands really have the gall to play designers like this. First Telfar and now Jonathan.
Hope he'll take it one step further and drag them to court.

I'm wondering if he has a case...seems more like he is shaming them for not continuing to work with him and supporting a small brand as opposed to a legal issue.

 

[Benn98]

I'm wondering if he has a case...seems more like he is shaming them for not continuing to work with him and supporting a small brand as opposed to a legal issue.

I now understand why he made the post...... because it's his only recourse really. These American giants are despicable.

via The Fashion Law:

After collaborating with Converse on a collection of uniquely-designed sneakers, which appeared in his Spring/Summer 2019 collection alongside handkerchief-point dresses, floor-grazing-fringe adorned jackets and skirts, and various takes on his signature puff-sleeved tops, Jonathan Anderson claims that the Nike-owned footwear giant has continued to make the All Star-inspired sneakers he created almost two years after they first debuted on his runway. However, unlike the original designs, which are currently listed as “sold out” on Converse’s site, the chunky rubber soles of the recent offerings are devoid of his brand’s name.

In an Instagram post this week, Anderson alleges that in furtherance of his collaboration with the footwear brand, he “developed a new shoe style” – the Run Star Hike. The shoe was something of an instant hit “because of its unique design,” Converse asserted in the lawsuit that it filed against Steve Madden in late May, in which it accused the fast fashion footwear brand of copying key elements of the shoe for its own lookalike pairs, and instead of backing down when Converse accused it of design patent infringement, Madden actually introduced an array of new models based on the same design.

Mr. Anderson is not a plaintiff in that suit (and in fact, is not listed as an inventor on the relevant design patents), as in all likelihood, he signed away his legal rights in the design of the shoe as part of his deal with Converse, as is common practice in connection with such collaborative deals. Converse’s ownership over the sneaker design – and thus, its exclusive right to decide how that design is later used – is also probably why Anderson has taken to Instagram to air his grievances (namely, “What is sad is when a massive company removes you form a collaboration when it starts to work. Instead of helping a small brand … out in these difficult times”), as opposed to doing so in court.

While Converse very well might be on the right side of the law in replicating the sneaker design without the J.W. Anderson branding on it, and thereby, removing the designer and his relatively young brand from any (potential) future revenue splitting and/or large-scale marketing that would come with an extended run of the original collection or a revamp, the issue is not necessarily just a legal one. It is one that goes to the enduring relationship between big brands and their collaborators.

 

[Lola701]

They are just plain stupid at Converse because JWA really made the chuck taylor relevant in that era of chunky sneakers...

It’s their loss anyway. JWA’s profile will continue to rise and they might regret it in the future. I’m sure an apparel collection designed by JWA would have been a hit!

 

[Benn98]

New Tik Tok sensation.
Never thought I'd see a Balenciaga designer twerk up a wall, but...this is 2020, lol.

 

[tapenerd]

Pray for him, y’all.

 

[gunsnroses]

A Wang trended and is now canceled on twitter because of this tweet

 

[RaisinBoy]

I read Vera Wang. 3 most shocked seconds of my life.

 

[Phuel]

I now understand why he made the post...... because it's his only recourse really. These American giants are despicable.

via The Fashion Law:

After collaborating with Converse on a collection of uniquely-designed sneakers, which appeared in his Spring/Summer 2019 collection alongside handkerchief-point dresses, floor-grazing-fringe adorned jackets and skirts, and various takes on his signature puff-sleeved tops, Jonathan Anderson claims that the Nike-owned footwear giant has continued to make the All Star-inspired sneakers he created almost two years after they first debuted on his runway. However, unlike the original designs, which are currently listed as “sold out” on Converse’s site, the chunky rubber soles of the recent offerings are devoid of his brand’s name.

In an Instagram post this week, Anderson alleges that in furtherance of his collaboration with the footwear brand, he “developed a new shoe style” – the Run Star Hike. The shoe was something of an instant hit “because of its unique design,” Converse asserted in the lawsuit that it filed against Steve Madden in late May, in which it accused the fast fashion footwear brand of copying key elements of the shoe for its own lookalike pairs, and instead of backing down when Converse accused it of design patent infringement, Madden actually introduced an array of new models based on the same design.

Mr. Anderson is not a plaintiff in that suit (and in fact, is not listed as an inventor on the relevant design patents), as in all likelihood, he signed away his legal rights in the design of the shoe as part of his deal with Converse, as is common practice in connection with such collaborative deals. Converse’s ownership over the sneaker design – and thus, its exclusive right to decide how that design is later used – is also probably why Anderson has taken to Instagram to air his grievances (namely, “What is sad is when a massive company removes you form a collaboration when it starts to work. Instead of helping a small brand … out in these difficult times”), as opposed to doing so in court.

While Converse very well might be on the right side of the law in replicating the sneaker design without the J.W. Anderson branding on it, and thereby, removing the designer and his relatively young brand from any (potential) future revenue splitting and/or large-scale marketing that would come with an extended run of the original collection or a revamp, the issue is not necessarily just a legal one. It is one that goes to the enduring relationship between big brands and their collaborators.

LOOOOL

I know I should be down with the “small brand” against the corporate goliaths, but it’s so so so hard to muster a genuine supportive effort when it’s him. It really is that perfects storm of poetic justice when it comes to him bellyaching about being ripped off creatively: Converse “copying key elements of the shoe for its own lookalike pairs" when he's been ripping off other designers creatively by “copying key elements” of their designs for his own crap, nonstop. Talk about the ultimate hypocrite with a complete lack of self-awareness.

As for the monetary component, does he really think people will be that naive and believe he is being victimized by the complex stipulations of such conglomerate (multi-)million dollar contract…??? He’s not some small new label startup without the presence of his lawyers and accountants by his side when he signed all those conglomerate contracts for millions, for crying out loud: He’s a CD for Loewe, as well as being in a continuous collaboration with another corporation, Uniqlo… He’s as insufferable as his fashions.

 

[Benn98]

He’s not some small new label startup without the presence of his lawyers and accountants by his side when he signed all those conglomerate contracts for millions, for crying out loud: He’s a CD for Loewe, as well as being in a continuous collaboration with another corporation, Uniqlo…

Surprised to see you're in favour of the suits. You make it sound as though he's turning billions, he's not Nicolas or Alessandro either. Anyway, all thing considered I think it's perfectly outrageous for Converse to pull such a move. At the core, it's just infringement, plain and simple. But since when did ethics stand in the way of corporate America?
Jonathan clearly can't have seen it coming if he made that IG post.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ His brand is a corporation by definition, so let’s dispense with the “small label” act.

Frankly, I’m simply not in favour of a thieving lesser like him who’s always blatantly ripped off Greats for his own designs— but now runs to SM to cry when he feels he’s been ripped off “creatively”. And I’m in favour of common sense, which apparently seems to be utterly abandoned by overly-emotional 15yo delicate flowers on SM these insufferable days when faux-rallying against corporations elevate your status as an activist/influencer. And common sense would dictate to anyone with a remotely functioning brain that a brand as high profile as his (along with all the corporations that he gets into bed with should teach him) has at least a lawyer and an accountant by his beckoned call, looking over every single word of his contracts with these ruthless conglomerates. Every single working person deserve what they are owned, and let me tell you that he and his lawyers go through those contracts with the scrutiny of a gold digger at the writing of a prenup before he would even consider a collab. He’s shown not only that he’s a huge hypocrite when it comes to crying about being ripped off “creatively”— but also just plain greedy now when they’ve cut any residuals he felt entitled to: Go cry to your lawyers, Jonathan.

On an unrelated note, LOL @the twitter twits thinking Alexander Wang is Vera Wang. (Why aren’t these nit-wits fingerwagging at such racism/sexism etc etc for the mob mistaking an effeminate Asian man for a famous Asian woman designer just cuz they have the same surname???? Where’s Adut and Nora when you need them…)

 

[YohjiAddict]

That Alexander Wang clip is so vulgar... I would give days off my life to have Cristóbal Balenciaga rise from his tomb and gift us with his opinion about him and that video.

 

[Lola701]

LOOOOL

I know I should be down with the “small brand” against the corporate goliaths, but it’s so so so hard to muster a genuine supportive effort when it’s him. It really is that perfects storm of poetic justice when it comes to him bellyaching about being ripped off creatively: Converse “copying key elements of the shoe for its own lookalike pairs" when he's been ripping off other designers creatively by “copying key elements” of their designs for his own crap, nonstop. Talk about the ultimate hypocrite with a complete lack of self-awareness.

As for the monetary component, does he really think people will be that naive and believe he is being victimized by the complex stipulations of such conglomerate (multi-)million dollar contract…??? He’s not some small new label startup without the presence of his lawyers and accountants by his side when he signed all those conglomerate contracts for millions, for crying out loud: He’s a CD for Loewe, as well as being in a continuous collaboration with another corporation, Uniqlo… He’s as insufferable as his fashions.

In every way, what he is complaining is totally different from any situation he is involved in.
When you are a creative director for a brand like Vuitton, you are an employee and everything you do for the company (drawings, campaigns...etc) is owned by the company as you for sure, know. Judging from the recurrency of his collaboration with Uniqlo, there seems to have no issue regarding crediting. The issue here is crediting and therefore losing money because they can endlessly release the product he design through a collaboration. He is not a Converse employee.

I get your « he is copying designers » but it’s not really the point here. When Pharrell did the collaboration with Chanel, he copied Castelbajac. Castelbajac complained but couldn’t do anything... There’s no law protecting intellectual property when it comes to fashion I think.

But now, he needs to make sure that all the designs created for a big brand under his name are protected when it comes to distribution.

And the lines can be sometimes blurred because he is his brand. Karl when he collaborated with H&M collaborated as his own person, and not as his brand.

But I’m with you when you say that nobody wants to hear a rich man complaining about being cheated by a conglomerate.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ On ethical standards alone, Pharrell or Rihanna “copying” other designers/intellectual property (of which I'm certain has passed all possible legal legislations) is almost a given since these are recording artists who’s lend their clout to further elevate a brand’s profile. No one is expecting them to produce visionary designs— nor do I get the impression they’re trying to convince anyone that they are. Ethically, it’s not the same as a professional, high-profile designer as Jonathan consistently “copying key elements” of archival designs from other designers, then whines about the injustice of being cheated out of his share of the profits with accusations of a corporate brand “copying key elements” of his one contribution. Agree that it’s a matter of contractual legalities and copywriting intellectual property that only he/his lawyers and the conglomerates would be privy to. And one singular post on SM from one party is not going to convince me he’s the victim of some corporate crime. And frankly, I just don’t care about him to research further.

The ethics and the hypocrisy of this man still stands in terms of him crying being ripped off creatively, when he does it himself.

 

[Lola701]

You know my stand on designers copying other designers I think...
I don’t mind people copying « the past », I have more problems with copying contemporaries or recent fashion...And it also has to do with how you do it.

I think Jonathan is quite clever in the way he does it. Wang for example, was terrible at doing it...

But I think it’s another debate for another thread.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ You’ve brought up an interesting and vital component of corporate design/copyright intellectual property vs the countless design references rip for ripping off. I’ve had so many of my work ripped off by shady people— and I’m a nobody.

If anyone’s familiar with and/or worked in corporate design, then they’ll understand just how heinous and greed-filled the business is: Where every single little morsel is licensed and demanding of a fee. (Look at Apple currently taking legal actions against some small startup company because their logo is a (badly drawn)… green pear with a leaf.) I admit I know this is what Jonathan is referring to when he’s accusing Converse of “copying key elements” of his contribution without him reaping the residual monetary benefits. And I understand that this is what you’re referring to when you said that such corporate design stealing from a creative is different from Jonathan being inspired by (ripping off) archival “key elements” of past designers’ work. And that’s a legally fair stance.

But I think that such an attitude makes him even worse. It just shows how corporate of a mentality he possesses with the believe that since his “design” is a corporate one, he’s entitled to any monetary residuals way after his contractual obligations are done (and that would be entirely confidential between him and Converse so unless someone breaches that confidentiality, we will never know). Meanwhile, he can continue to incorporate stolen “key elements’ of others’ deigns into his own fashions since those intellectual properties aren't copyright protected so it’s all fair game— from legal perspective. Which reveals him to be just as corporate in his mindset as any huge conglomerate— and shady AF LOL

(Anyway, I know most don't care for this sort of corporate design legality conversation... So yes-- Wang looks like some Todrick Hall parody video character...)

 

[JohannesL]

^^^ You’ve brought up an interesting and vital component of corporate design/copyright intellectual property vs the countless design references rip for ripping off. I’ve had so many of my work ripped off by shady people— and I’m a nobody.

If anyone’s familiar with and/or worked in corporate design, then they’ll understand just how heinous and greed-filled the business is: Where every single little morsel is licensed and demanding of a fee. (Look at Apple currently taking legal actions against some small startup company because their logo is a (badly drawn)… green pear with a leaf.) I admit I know this is what Jonathan is referring to when he’s accusing Converse of “copying key elements” of his contribution without him reaping the residual monetary benefits. And I understand that this is what you’re referring to when you said that such corporate design stealing from a creative is different from Jonathan being inspired by (ripping off) archival “key elements” of past designers’ work. And that’s a legally fair stance.

But I think that such an attitude makes him even worse. It just shows how corporate of a mentality he possesses with the believe that since his “design” is a corporate one, he’s entitled to any monetary residuals way after his contractual obligations are done (and that would be entirely confidential between him and Converse so unless someone breaches that confidentiality, we will never know). Meanwhile, he can continue to incorporate stolen “key elements’ of others’ deigns into his own fashions since those intellectual properties aren't copyright protected so it’s all fair game— from legal perspective. Which reveals him to be just as corporate in his mindset as any huge conglomerate— and shady AF LOL

(Anyway, I know most don't care for this sort of corporate design legality conversation... So yes-- Wang looks like some Todrick Hall parody video character...)

I have never been the one who seeks integrity in the fashion industry, to a large extent, in the corporate world, but his hypocrisy really annoys me to the extent that it’s hard for me to feel sympathetic the way I feel for the disadvantaged. Maybe next time, he should set his moral standard higher!

 

[Benn98]

Leandra Medine is also stepping back and "going on the sidelines", whatever the f that means

Well, that was fast....LOL!

LEANDRA MEDINE COHEN ANNOUNCES RETURN TO MAN REPELLER, EIGHT WEEKS AFTER STEPPING BACK

written by Freya Drohan August 11, 2020

Leandra Medine (Patrick McMullan)

Man Repeller founder Leandra Medine Cohen shared a personal update on Substack, recognizing her shortcomings as leader of the popular fashion blog turned media company.

On June 10, Cohen announced she would be stepping back from the site she founded over a decade ago after both backlash from readers and accounts from former interns and employees about a hostile workplace culture.

Her lengthy post served as an apology, a clarification about what happened with former employee Crystal Anderson, and a somewhat vague revelation that she will rejoin Man Repeller. Though it’s not yet clear what capacity she will return in.

She wrote, “As of this writing, I’m slowly returning to the brand in an updated, less operational role that will impact the overall structure of my involvement in the company. I know this sounds very vague, but it will make more sense soon. After years of thinking it’s been my role to teach, I’m eager to spend more time learning from the team, who is showing me what Man Repeller can be.

“It would have been hard to see a lot of this clearly had it not been for the private conversations I’ve had with current and former employees who’ve been willing to honestly recount our relationship from their perspectives. I know it’s not their responsibility, and I’m grateful to them for their time and candor. The conversations have brought up lots of feelings of shame but have also reminded me of the value of connection — the foundational principle on which I started Man Repeller in the first place.

Before deciding to step back in June, the mom-of-two was called out for being “tone deaf” and catering only to “skinny white rich cis women.” A blog post written about racial injustice after George Floyd’s death further seemed to aggravate and alienate readers, along with damning accounts from former employees left in the comments section.

Leandra Medine (Benjamin Lozovsky/BFA.com)

When announcing her decision to step back, Cohen said, “Man Repeller was founded to celebrate self expression in all of its forms but it has become clear that I’ve failed to deliver on this mission. The team deserves a chance to show you what Man Repeller can be with me on the sidelines so I’m going to step back and let them show you.”

“You were right — even though I’ve been able to write so intimately about every other experience of my life over the past decade, I’ve fallen short here,” she continued. “That’s because this is more than just an exploration of my feelings. It’s my ignorance. Ignorance is part of the problem. Separately, Man Repeller and I will be part of the solution.”

In her new post, Cohen said she has used the past eight weeks as an opportunity to reflect and educate herself.

“The past several months have invited a critical reckoning for many of us — and we all have a responsibility to rise for equitability. For me, this reckoning also unraveled a lot of sh*t I have been avoiding in relation to myself like, for example, making a genuine commitment to defining who I am and standing by it no matter the loss. Or gain.

“I know anti-racism work is not an opportunity for me to heal emotional wounds, but what I am learning is that this work affects all areas of my life. And one of the most profound things I’ve come to learn is the true definition of listening — to suspend your own experience in order to understand another one. This necessarily impacts how you think, and therefore how you speak, engage, and ultimately share.”

She concluded, “…internalizing where I’ve gotten it wrong over the course of my career and frankly in my life assures me that with enough discipline, self-awareness, and consistency, there is no going back. Only forward…..I do know I’m going to keep trying really f*cking hard to act in my desired integrity, and that I won’t let fear get in the way. It’s going to be messy, I am sure, but I hope you’ll stick around.”

To coincide with the announcement, the New York City-native also shared her first Instagram update since June. The Substack post can be read in its entirety here.

Fashionweekdaily

 

[tapenerd]

This isn’t going to go over well.

 

[Benn98]

See what happens when you want to show off? She basically dug her own grave, she should never have made that proud proclamation, lol. I will say that I was gullible enough to believe her but it seems I underestimated the full extent of her ego.
Look at the Olsens, they're keeping mum over the fact that they don't employ a single black professional. And anyway, if people won't ask them about that then it will be MK's messy divorce. Not that stonewalling will save them for long though.

 

[Lola701]

That Leandra situation is totally ridiculous and shows how we need to move on from that dictatorship of emotion. It was pointless of her to fake her exit as it is pointless from people who didn’t care for her in the first place to be outraged.

I never got the buzz around her and still don’t care. So she can comeback, give the most perfect PR-approved statement, it still don’t matter.

^^^ You’ve brought up an interesting and vital component of corporate design/copyright intellectual property vs the countless design references rip for ripping off. I’ve had so many of my work ripped off by shady people— and I’m a nobody.

If anyone’s familiar with and/or worked in corporate design, then they’ll understand just how heinous and greed-filled the business is: Where every single little morsel is licensed and demanding of a fee. (Look at Apple currently taking legal actions against some small startup company because their logo is a (badly drawn)… green pear with a leaf.) I admit I know this is what Jonathan is referring to when he’s accusing Converse of “copying key elements” of his contribution without him reaping the residual monetary benefits. And I understand that this is what you’re referring to when you said that such corporate design stealing from a creative is different from Jonathan being inspired by (ripping off) archival “key elements” of past designers’ work. And that’s a legally fair stance.

But I think that such an attitude makes him even worse. It just shows how corporate of a mentality he possesses with the believe that since his “design” is a corporate one, he’s entitled to any monetary residuals way after his contractual obligations are done (and that would be entirely confidential between him and Converse so unless someone breaches that confidentiality, we will never know). Meanwhile, he can continue to incorporate stolen “key elements’ of others’ deigns into his own fashions since those intellectual properties aren't copyright protected so it’s all fair game— from legal perspective. Which reveals him to be just as corporate in his mindset as any huge conglomerate— and shady AF LOL

(Anyway, I know most don't care for this sort of corporate design legality conversation... So yes-- Wang looks like some Todrick Hall parody video character...)

What you said about how corporate his mentality is, is totally true but I want to say that this is unfortunately the nature of fashion today.
Today, fashion is corporate as much as any industry. And like any industry, everything is ruled by contracts, mutual interest and money. This is the bad side of globalization and corporatism.

When YSL referenced Mondrian, he didn’t have the money to buy a Mondrian and such things as « right of reproduction » did not existed at the time.
Can we count on how many times the work of Pollock has been appropriated and referenced in the fashion industry!?

Collaborations between corporations started maybe with Vuitton and Sprouse. He designed a graffiti, gained popularity and after his death, Vuitton recreated a collaboration through his foundation. His design became a corporate one.

What changed the game recently was the Dapper Dan situation. He appropriated logos, created bootlegs of clothes from companies that did not created apparel at the time and when one of those companies appropriated what he did, the outrage was monumental and he got compensation. For me, that changed the nature of the industry. While it was something that IMO gave hope to young designers, it changed the nature of the industry and of the concept of design, even more when it’s between a corporation and a designer.

I think it’s also important to note that brands that works with « Creative Directors » and not « designers » are more often in discussion about appropriating people’s work. When you are depending on mood boards or when the base of your work start with someone else’s work... You are an easy target.

But it’s kinda of funny to see that « War against copy » at a time when fashion couldn’t be less original. I sometimes wonder what they are fighting against (even if I know)....