Moschino cites First Amendment in bid to scrap graffiti artist’s Katy Perry copyright claim
Italian luxury brand Moschino and fashion designer Jeremy Scott have urged a US court to dismiss a graffiti artist’s claim that a dress modelled by singer Katy Perry infringed his intellectual property.
In a motion to dismiss, filed on October 29 at the US District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Moschino argued that it is “well established” that the wearing of fashion (let alone its design and dissemination) is a First Amendment-protected activity.
The dispute centres on a dress worn by Perry at the Met Gala, held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York earlier this year.
The dress, designed by Scott, contained images from a piece of art created by graffiti artist ‘Rime’ called “Vandal Eyes”, as well the artist’s signature.
Rime, real name Joseph Tierney, sued Moschino and Scott at the California court in August, alleging that the unauthorised use of his design infringed his copyright.
He also claimed that the use of the pseudonym ‘Rime’ on the dress suggested a false association between Rime and Moschino. Rime added that Moschino and Scott’s allegedly infringing actions had damaged his “ street cred”.
However, Moschino and Scott have hit back arguing that the lawsuit was an attempt to restrict its constitutional right to free expression.
The pair argued that the dress was a protected expression and that there was no “reasonable basis” to conclude the use of Rime’s signature on the dress constituted a form of sponsorship or endorsement.
The motion to dismiss also claimed that Rime’s lawsuit should be thrown out under California’s anti-SLAPP provision, a Californian state law designed to stop parties from intentionally burdening another party with a legal complaint.
For a claim to prevail under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant has to show that the violation of a constitutional right is in the public interest. Moschino and Scott argue that the publicity attracted by Perry, and her position in popular culture, fulfils that requirement under the anti-SLAPP law.
Citing the 2008 Nygard v Uusi-Kerttula decision that “any issue in which the public is interested” constitutes public interest, Moschino stated its “activities at issue in this suit arise from a matter of public interest”.
In a separate motion filed on the same day, Scott, who is commercial director at Moschino, defended his use of the “Vandal Eyes” design as a form of political commentary.
“I came up with a concept for a dress to be worn at the celebrated Met Gala and a graffiti-based collection that subverted the seriousness of traditional black-tie fashion while also commenting on the way society objectifies women by literally imposing cultural symbols and meaning upon them,” he said .
David Erikson, partner at law firm Erikson Law Group and representing Rime, said Moschino's claim do not qualify under the anti-SLAPP statute.
"To achieve the heightened protections of he First Amendment and anti-slapp, Jeremy Scott relies on a rather exalted conception of his place in the fashion world and in contemporary culture. He claims that his fashion, as opposed to everyone else's, is not only art but wry and incisive cultural commentary," he said.
