Fashion designer John Galliano’s company was ordered to pay 200,000 euros ($365,958) in damages to renowned US photographer William Klein for plagiarising his technique to create advertisements for his own label, in ads for the fashion house in Britain, France and Russia. The Galliano campaign was splashed across French and international fashion magazines last month. A Paris court heard it featured black and white photographs displayed like a contact sheet, with two glossy dotted lines on the top and the bottom, closely resembling a technique that Mr Klein has made his own and which he has been developing for more than 15 years.
In his March 28 decision, Judge Claude Vallet said Galliano’s advertisements too closely resembled Klein’s hallmark “painted contacts” - oversized painted contact sheets streaked with stokes of vivid color.
The photographer Mr Klein, 79, who lives in France, said that he was “bitter and furious, because plagiarism is vulgar and despicable”. He went on: “I know that some designers pass their time borrowing everything: 1920s fashions, Africa, Asia, Eskimos … they are like children in an attic who amuse themselves by pinching their grandmother’s clothes.
“But that John Galliano, who holds a degree from a prestigious London art school and is cultivated, can imagine hijacking everything he wants with impunity, that I cannot allow.”
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”.
“John Galliano’s advertising campaign did not reproduce any original image of the artist, it can’t therefore be accused of be counterfeiting,” Galliano’s lawyer Michel-Paul Escaped said in a statement.
Mr Galliano, who designs for his own label and for Christian Dior, and is known for gathering inspiration for his highly theatrical collections from historical and ethnic sources, pulled the plug on the ad campaign after the lawsuit was filed. 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 authorisation from the photographer.
It ordered the designer to pay compensation for abuse of Klein’s rights as author and damages to the image of the work that resulted from the poor quality of the reproductions.
Galliano’s lawyer had argued that the ads did not constitute plagiarism because their images did not look like those from Klein’s work. Galliano has appealed the decision, in an attempt to lower the fine, judicial sources said.

Women Lifestyle
Women Gossip
Women Fashion
Women Health
Women Beauty
Women Business
Women Personality
Diary of Women Lifestyle, Fashion, Health, Beauty and Personality
Submit Article | What Pople Say | Contact
Us | Social
Bookmarking | Sitemap
@Copyright 2005-2008