Hey, there! Log in / Register
Photographer says Marshalls sold his work on a shirt without his permission, sues
By adamg on Thu, 07/13/2017 - 11:06am
From the complaint: One of the shirts in question. See the original photo.
A Texas photographer is seeking up to $125,000 for each shirt that Marshalls sold bearing what he says is an unauthorized reprint of part of one of his photos.
In his copyright suit, filed this week in US District Court in Boston, Jamie Ibarra of Austin says Marshalls' owner, TJX of Framingham, slapped part of his photo of a naked woman in a native-American headdress on clothing with no regard to his copyright on the work.
In addition to the $125,000 for each shirt, Ibarra is seeking any profits Marshalls made on the shirts, plus penalties and legal fees.
Complete Ibarra complaint (2M PDF).
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I thought Marshalls just sold
I thought Marshalls just sold stuff from Macys and other stores, I didn't think they made their own clothes
Yep
But his complaint charges them with, among other things, "reproducing" his work.
Standard caveat: Just because something's in a legal complaint doesn't mean it's true or accurate.
Ridiculous
Anyone do this math? If they sold 500 shirts. He's seeking 62,500,000?
Marshall's / TJX
Pretty sure their original MO was to sell department store rejects (last year's style, etc). But as they've grown, they've sourced their own stuff.
Just found this on their website http://www.marshallsonline.com/how-we-do-it
Why is he not suing the manufacturer
rather than the retailer?
Well he's a "photographer"
Not a rocket scientist!
All sorts of reasons
By suing Marshall's as opposed to trying to find and sue some guy with a silkscreen press in some garage somewhere in China, he has a much better chance of:
The "rocket scientist" comment is sheer ignorant negativity.
I've seen several allegations of that by American clothes chains
The usual response seems to be "so sue us".
This is very ironic
Guess he's mad that Marshalls appropriated his cultural appropriation.
What in the world does usage
What in the world does usage of copyrighted material have to do with cultural appropriation?
It's a photo of a woman in a Native American headdress
Appropriating something that certain tribes did.
Taking a photograph is
Taking a photograph is cultural appropriation?
Take a look at the original
Take a look at the original photograph. It is a mismatch of several minority cultures. By definition his "art" is cultural appropriation.
In turn, someone stole his photo and put it on a tshirt.
Posing a white woman in a headdress is cultral appropriation
For some reason this seems to be a popular thing among the "electronic music festival" crowd. I guess it's supposed to be sexy or cool or whatever, but it's definitely cultural appropriation.
Non-native woman
It would be just as bad if a black woman or an Asian woman or a Hawaiian or Samoan woman wore this without the appropriate cultural context.
The whole thing is just wrong.
I really don't follow this argument.
So long as the purpose is not to demean or to exploit, Is it really morally wrong to wear clothing, practice customs, eat foods, sing songs, etc. from a (traditionally less powerful) culture that is not one's own?
It's a G.D. photo that HE took, Adam.
That's like saying National Geographic is appropriating Afghani culture for putting a girl with amazing eyes on it's cover.
Take it down a notch, Adam.
Don't be so stupid
To start, I was answering a question, not trying to make some overarching argument of may own.
But to your point: That Afghan girl was an actual Afghan girl in her actual Afghanistan. National Geographic was doing reporting on conditions in Afghanistan.
This guy is an artist who thought it would be cool to dress up some model in a particular type of head covering that means something particular to a specific group that I suspect he's not a part of. You may have heard that Native Americans are very touchy about such things. You may have heard of, oh, the Washington football team as an example, even if you may not understand why Native Americans might concerned about such appropriation of their heritage and culture. Trust me, it's a thing. You could look it up.
This has nothing to do with the guy's lawsuit, of course.
Marshall's put his work on a shirt?
When did Marshall's start making clothes?
I suspect he is following the
I suspect he is following the deep pocket rule, sue the people with the deep pockets. Let the courts sort it out.
Quite a high valuation on each shirt in the lawsuit.
Makes you wish for the British system
Plaintiff pays if they lose.
Why?
The image on the T-shirt which they sold for profit is clearly stolen.
If you receive and resell stolen property, you aren't off the hook.
yeah
Yeah, I really yearn for the day when big companies can use their financial clout to win cases AND have the guy who can't afford their own legal counsel pick up the company's legal tab.
Not their legal tab
The amount the plaintiff sought to win from the defendant. Which, under the rules of common sense, would exceed what the defense spent to defend themselves against the suit.
Nonsense
Nonsense.
Someone sues a major corporation for $100,000 it makes perfect sense to spend two, three, or five times that defending the suit, to make an example of what happens to poor schmucks who dare to mess with you.
One reason for that
I don't know whether these particular allegations are legitimate, but going after the big company means that big companies can't just use smaller, disposable companies in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink fashion to get away with civil or criminal violations.
15 or 20 years
TJX Co. no longer sell off-season department store leftovers. They have a bunch of their own 'brands' that they make cheapo fast-fashion style in China and sell for "$$" with tags that say "Compare at.... $$$$." They stock just enough high fashion brand markdown stuff to differentiate themselves from H&M or Primark. I don't think there's a TJX factory per say, but they design and select the stuff they stock.
Shouldn't he be suing IBC Vintage?
Whoever they are and not Marshall's?
Exactly
I don't see how Marshalls would have to do due diligence to ensure there is no copyright violation. Would those that sell books or CDs (or however people get music) be liable for copyright violations, too?
BSC
BSC Vintage. I think he should have sued them instead. They would be the actual infringer, but he is right in going after Marshalls for profits.
How do you know he's not?
Not unreasonable to assume he might be suing each link in the chain - from mftr to distributor to retailer. We're hearing about the Marshalls part because this is a Boston-centric newsite.
At least as of yesterday ...
His only suit in any federal court is against Marshalls. I'll check again in a few days to see if he's sued anybody else.
How do you search for these things?
Do the courts have online searchable databases?
They DO work with vendors
I just read a story recently about how the TJX companies used to sell other people's left overs, but now they generally work with the manufacturers to create the products they sell. They might have Ralph Lauren create a cheaper version of some RL product line and only sell it at TJ Max.
It's not 100% clear whether Marshalls bought a bunch of shirts that BSC was selling or if they had some hand in designing it. I guess that's what the court will decide.
Idiot
Maybe getting paid $5/shirt and TJX would listen. $125,000/shirt is just being an idiot.
Whom should he sue?
With the level of legal ignorance being displayed here, I find it hard to believe some of these commenters actually passed the bar exam.
I was going to say IANAL
But I didn't want people to misinterpret that.
The person or corporation that willfully violated the copyright
If Marshalls created the shirt themselves, sure, there is definitely grounds, but Marshalls is not the Gap or American Apparel. They buy products from companies that create said products. The creators of the shirt are the ones who should be sued. The suit offers no proof that Marshalls created the shirt.
Although the means of the following example is a bit off in our modern world, who should the estate of Marvin Gaye have sued with the infringement of the late Mr. Gaye's copyrights when the song Blurred Lines was released? Apple for selling the song in their iTunes store? Whatever record stores are still around for selling Robin Thicke's CD? No, they sued the guy who actually ripped off the original song. That's who violated the copyright.
"Whatever record stores"
Dude, you ain't kidding. I popped into the Harvard Square Newbury Comics on Free Cone Day downstairs. Records have become almost an afterthought. Fashion items greet you instead.
Yes
That's the flaw with the analogy, though I can say I've bought a CD this year.
That said, Newbury Comics knows what it's doing. I have a friend who used to buy his comics there back when the records and tapes were in the back in a small section. Adapt or die, and they adapt well.
Who
I hope your error on the usage of the word "Whom" is meant to be ironic since you were complaining about ignorance.
Seems okay to me... it's the
Seems okay to me... it's the object of the sentence that can be arranged as "he should sue whom?"
LOL
What would the correct usage have been?
I believe the correct usage
Is "who-all."
Whomst
Whomst
That's what you get when you
That's what you get when you try to sell sexploitation in the big box stores!!!
2 seconds of google
Right there on their own website: "We buy from all kinds of vendors: big brand names to boutique, designer labels, as well as up-and-coming labels and one-of-a-kind gems. We also have some merchandise manufactured for us to bring you exceptional fashion and quality at an amazing price. Our buyers choose many different colors, styles and fabrics so there are always lots of great choices for you."
BSC Vintage is a brand without any other web presence, so likely a house brand of TJX.
It's the manufacturer BSC responsibility. Ridiculous suit.
BSC is responsible.
The plaintiff claims willful , reckless, intentional , no regard... over a tee shirt design. Damages of tens of millions . I have not seen this photo anywhere , does anyone know what it's from? Has Apple , Amazon or Nike used this for a new logo? Could this just be a photographer looking for exposure. Pretty good advertising since we're talking about him here.