Fashionising.com > Fashion Forums > Designers & Collections

John Galliano has been found guilty of plagiarism by a French court; after using a US photographer's art without permission.

Reuters reports:

Fashion designer John Galliano's company was ordered to pay 200,000 euros in damages to renowned U.S. photographer William Klein for unauthorized use of his atmospheric imagery in an advertising campaign.

The photographer, who lives in France said he was "furious" at Galliano's use of some of his half-painted photographs of street scenes in advertisements in several fashion magazines.

Klein's giant versions of contact sheets showing a series of photographs, painted over in colored enamel to highlight particular images, were a popular feature of a recent exhibition at the Pompidou Centre in Paris.

The court of first instance in Paris said Klein's "painted contacts" were a hallmark of his work and Galliano's use of imagery was clearly illegal in the absence of authorization from the photographer.

It ordered the designer to pay 150,000 euros to compensate for abuse of Klein's rights as author and 50,000 euros in damages to the image of the work that resulted from the poor quality of the reproductions.

Galliano said it would appeal the ruling with the aim of reducing the fine as it rejected the allegation its campaign could be considered "counterfeiting."

wow.
what made Galliano think he wouldn't have to pay to use photo's of somebody elses art? (or atleast ask nicely?)
shocking.

I agree, he should have known better. Maybe he just thought he could get away with it?? I have heard it said though...

"Stealing one person's idea is called plagerism.
Stealing many people's ideas is called inspiration."

I thought that was quite funny.

Can't imagine William Klein being furious about being used in a Galliano ad...more like he didn't get paid for it. I think he's getting more than $200k worth of publicity from this...poor John, PR should be on overdrive I say...

i think he was furious because nobody asked?

anyone got the pics/ads?

Didn't Galliano only copy William Klein's trademark technique of painting over photographs? I don't think that he used any of the artists actual images.

If he did (and I'm not saying he did), he should have to pay a hell of a lot more than a couple hundred thousand! That's effing intellectual property right theft...hmmm...maybe i'm passionate on this subject.

I haven't been able to find the ads in question (yet), but here are some works by Klein.

They're a very unique style, so I can see why the ruling was made.

Look and ye shall find: