A gorilla sculpture of Freddie Mercury was removed from a public art trail in Norwich after the estate of the late Queen singer alleged copyright infringement in the distinctive yellow and white suit
A gorilla sculpture of Freddie Mercury was removed from a public art trail in Norwich after the estate of the late Queen singer alleged copyright infringement in the distinctive yellow and white suit "worn" by the gorilla.
The "Radio Go Go" gorilla was one of 53 life-sized model gorillas painted by artists in the Norwich community. They are to be on public display before being auctioned off for charity. Freddie Mercury's estate contacted Wild in Art, suppliers of the glass-fibre gorillas, asserting that it owned the copyright in the "Radio Go Go" gorilla suit and asked for it to be removed from the public trail.
Mik Richardson, who painted the gorilla, argued that he had taken care not to copy the suit exactly but nevertheless agreed to remove and repaint the gorilla. Now the dust has settled the question remains whether copyright ever subsisted in the suit at all?
Fashion and costume designers generally use unregistered designs as opposed to copyright to protect their mass-produced, functional garments. However, as unregistered design right only lasts for three years after a design is made available to the public, any legal protection afforded to the yellow and white suit would have expired at least two decades ago (Freddie Mercury died in 1991).
By contrast, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years but the protection is much harder to establish. For a copyright claim to succeed, Freddie Mercury's estate would have to show that the suit constituted an original work of artistic craftsmanship. There have been many cases which highlight the difficulty of establishing artistic copyright in relation to clothing, a recent example being the claim brought by Lucasfilm alleging infringement in costumes from the Star Wars films (see our previous report on this case, as published on www.ffw.com). In that case the costumes were denied artistic copyright on the basis that "it was no part of [the costume's purpose] that it should in any way appeal as a piece of art".
Whilst the success of any copyright claim will never be determined in this case, the story serves to highlight the balance that must be struck between the public interest in reproducing work and the rights of brand owners to control how their IP rights are used.
The "Radio Go Go" gorilla was one of 53 life-sized model gorillas painted by artists in the Norwich community. They are to be on public display before being auctioned off for charity. Freddie Mercury's estate contacted Wild in Art, suppliers of the glass-fibre gorillas, asserting that it owned the copyright in the "Radio Go Go" gorilla suit and asked for it to be removed from the public trail.
Mik Richardson, who painted the gorilla, argued that he had taken care not to copy the suit exactly but nevertheless agreed to remove and repaint the gorilla. Now the dust has settled the question remains whether copyright ever subsisted in the suit at all?
Fashion and costume designers generally use unregistered designs as opposed to copyright to protect their mass-produced, functional garments. However, as unregistered design right only lasts for three years after a design is made available to the public, any legal protection afforded to the yellow and white suit would have expired at least two decades ago (Freddie Mercury died in 1991).
By contrast, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years but the protection is much harder to establish. For a copyright claim to succeed, Freddie Mercury's estate would have to show that the suit constituted an original work of artistic craftsmanship. There have been many cases which highlight the difficulty of establishing artistic copyright in relation to clothing, a recent example being the claim brought by Lucasfilm alleging infringement in costumes from the Star Wars films (see our previous report on this case, as published on www.ffw.com). In that case the costumes were denied artistic copyright on the basis that "it was no part of [the costume's purpose] that it should in any way appeal as a piece of art".
Whilst the success of any copyright claim will never be determined in this case, the story serves to highlight the balance that must be struck between the public interest in reproducing work and the rights of brand owners to control how their IP rights are used.