×
75 642
Fashion Jobs
JCPENNEY
Asset Protection Associate - Plaza Bonita
Permanent · National City
JCPENNEY
Sales Floor Supervisor - South Park Mall
Permanent · San Antonio
JCPENNEY
Asset Protection Associate - Alderwood Mall
Permanent · Lynnwood
JCPENNEY
Sales Floor Supervisor - Washington sq
Permanent · Portland
JCPENNEY
Sales Floor Supervisor - Great Lakes Mall
Permanent · Mentor
ON RUNNING
sr Financial Analyst - Commercial Finance
Permanent · PORTLAND
ON RUNNING
Finance Systems Specialist
Permanent · PORTLAND
REISS
Area Visual Manager- South East
Permanent · MIAMI
URBN
Anthropologie Visual Merchandising Manager
Permanent · NEW YORK
URBN
Free People Assistant Visual Manager
Permanent · MIAMI
URBN
Free People Merchandise Planner
Permanent · PHILADELPHIA
SACK OFF 5TH
Asset Protection Investigator
Permanent · RIVERHEAD
BANANA REPUBLIC
Manager, Marketing Operations
Permanent · SAN FRANCISCO
OLD NAVY
Asset Protection Service Representative - Shops at Bruckner bl
Permanent ·
GAP INC.
sr Analyst, Finance - Forecast & Budget (Remote)
Permanent · ALBUQUERQUE
OLD NAVY
General Manager-Arsenal Yards
Permanent · WATERTOWN
CROCS
Crocs: Retail Area Manager Boston, ma
Permanent · BOSTON
NORDSTROM
Asset Protection - Agent - Midtown Mall Rack
Permanent · Anchorage
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Part Time - Glendale
Permanent · GLENDALE
MICHAEL KORS
Part-Time Sales Supervisor, Fresno, ca
Permanent · Fresno
TJ MAXX
lp Detective-Southland
Permanent · Miami
HOMEGOODS
70118-lp Detective
Permanent · Birmingham
Published
Jun 15, 2018
Reading time
2 minutes
Share
Download
Download the article
Print
Click here to print
Text size
aA+ aA-

Oakley sued by graffiti artists for copyright infringement

Published
Jun 15, 2018

In a page right out of H&M's recent graffiti copyright lawsuit, Oakley has been sued by two graffiti artists who claim the action sports company used their work in a campaign without getting their permission first.


Oakley


In the complaint filed in federal court in California, street artists Donald Robbins and Noah Darr argue that Oakley "unlawfully [took] their original artwork," murals which the duo known as Keptione and DJ Rakus painted in San Francisco in 2015 as part of a global curated street art initiative called Meeting of Styles.

Robbins and Darr's complaint alleges that  "in an effort to increase sales revenues, attract young new customers, and target a young urban demographic, Oakley developed and launched the international multi-media campaign featuring the murals as the centerpiece element."

The murals in question are stylized tags of the artists' names. According to the artists, Oakley never contacted them about using the works which were incorporated into consumer-facing marketing campaigns seen in store, and also  used in ads and internally for sales in print catalogues.

Adding fuel to the fire, the complaint alleges that Oakley added its own branding to the murals. Robbins and Darr assert that "Oakley also superimposed its own Oakley brand logo next to the murals throughout the campaign, as if the Oakley brand created the murals itself."

The artists include arguments about how Oakley's use devalued their works, writing in the complaint that "the artists have carefully avoided any association with corporate culture and mass-market consumerism." Indeed, despite receiving offers to use their work commercially, Robbins and Darr have intentionally avoided corporate advertising campaigns, believing that collaborating in such projects would damage their "street cred."

The case echoes H&M's recent graffiti faux pas where the apparel retailer used Revok's work to launch its active line. Unlike H&M, however, Oakley is a core action sports brand and risks alienating its target consumer by doing something that violates street artists' rights.

Although the Orange County-based brand has been bought out by Luxottica, its heritage and target customer are much more closely linked to the creativity and authenticity that live through street, skate, and snow culture than H&M. As such, using graffiti art without getting the artists' approval could be much more off-putting to the Oakley target customer than the fast fashion H&M consumer.

For its part, Luxottica appears to be ready to fight, saying that the works lack any "modicum of creativity," are "generic," and therefore cannot be protected.

However, this could turn out to be a case where even if Luxottica's legal team successfully defends Oakley and achieves legal victory, its brand might suffer a moral loss. Indeed, the cost to the business of fighting artists who could be core influencers for the brand might make for a bigger commercial loss for Oakley in the long run than settling and pulling the campaign.

Copyright © 2023 FashionNetwork.com All rights reserved.