I'm an attorney that works in intellectual property. Fashion design is generally difficult to protect because clothing is very similar. Generally the "branding" (logo etc) is what is protected. JW Anderson, I'm certain, had a lawyer go over this contract and explain this very thing would probably happen. I'm sure this situation was a "work for hire" meaning Converse hires you to make something for them but they own it and all rights to the design are theirs. This is generally standard where big business and creatives intersect.
The vibe I’m getting from the information I’ve read is that he was aware what he was getting himself into but it hit him hard when he actually saw it happen and expected they’d “do the right thing.” The problem with that is business doesn’t work that way. It’s very cut-throat
I think the general legal consensus that derives from cases like JW. Αnderson and all other footwear collaborations really , is that major brands towards fashion designers as collaborators have always the upper hand on the protection of the rights over the initial design or more to the point the actual model/silouette the collaborator choose to do 1) either variations 2 different interpretations using different colours station or changing the craftsmanship using different materials or 3 ) even a newish creation of a model based on an pre existing silouette initial design of other models presented in the past from the brand s vault especially talking about footwear . In all three scenarios the brand the label the name the insignia the storytelling and all parties concerned there of , the conception of the silouette itself are elements that constitute the trademark and in essence or by default they have the sole protection . So that's the first thing to bear in mind before entering those contracts . Sure . It depends on the character of the collaboration and the terms in contract itself . No 3 might seem the most debatable to many when it comes to a collaboration yet ptobably it's not . It might look that the collaborator being a high end designer or a young creative might do the most of it change everything making the final product almost un recognizable yet a fact remains . he has worked on a intellectual property that belongs to the major brand and all trademarks rights are protected since the actual initial design of this creation was conceived . If it is a whole new ish model based on previous models or prototypes from the vault of the brand still the rights are solid in respect of the brands creation and all elements that constitute the trademark . So yes bringing back Samuel Ross from A cold wall , he can add his bold militaristic touch on a Chuck Taylor to make it feel unique yet Converse since retaining the rights on the model they can distribute it through wider numbers or how they may see fit . A Ltd GR distribution perhaps at best . It's business and its all about shifting units . if they feel the demand over their product was boosted because of the colaboration they may well make more available variations of it to more consumers. It's not exploitation . First of all the model belongs to them and they wouldn't be any collaboration in the first place had they not entered the contract with the designer . So the designer wouldn't have a chance to enjoy the benefits / royalties of this colaboration after all . The appeal is specific . A high end designer that have an appeal to limited audiences have the chance to broader his appeal of his work and his individual artistic touch over a product that most of the times is known to be decades older than his own business .For footwear colabs is pretty obvious I think . The burden of the collaboration is kind of ethical . Not overriding on rights from the major party . It's not exploitation to allow a product that came as a result from a fruitful colab to enter the circulation with the same esque design hues adopted by the collaborating designer . Funny thing is sometimes this is not even the case . Let's set the record straight on this one . Off white and Nike . Nike keep releasing footwear with exposed the foam on the tongues and everybody moaning that' was Virgil idea from the "10 colab . No it was not . Nike was releasing running trainers with exposed foam parts since the 70s !!! Fair enough the deconstructed trend on all sneaker wear these days is his approach . But the devil is in the details . Not everything is his . The use of trasluscent material was introduced firstly by CDG and this is another one for the record . Other than that an exclusion clause can protect the designer as well even if it states that varied but not identical in description products conceived originally for the colaboration could see into a general release and availability . It is the protection of the trademark elements on the side of the collaborating creative this time around so no same marketing no insignia no signature design details should appear on the "variations" . Same but different is the general principle for those "variations " to be unleased from those sub contractual terms. It's a win win situation for both sides imo .
It really isn't a smart thing to do. Because yes they dont pay royalties but in the long term designers will stop working with the brand and that is a huge opportunity cost
I'm fairly certain all the necessary legal due diligence would have been performed prior to the contract being signed given the nature of the deal. Neither party is a small fry so they would have been lawyered up. Jonathan Anderson doesn't seem surprised from his post, he's disappointed. Converse were always allowed to replicate the design - that would have been made clear to him (accept it or don't collaborate with a sneaker giant like Converse, who can increase your exposure ten fold - who would say no?), but he probably wasn't expecting an exact copy without the J.W Anderson name. As a massive fan of J.W Anderson, he's right that it's a shame that it happened and credit isn't given where it's due now, but Converse are completely within their rights to do this.
That’s why I found the Fashion Law article really interesting because they stated that Converse were well within legal rights to do this. I guess Jonathan must have weighed up the pros and cons and decided he would get more from the deal in terms of exposure and marketing than he lost.
Thanks. I actually didn’t make it, a very nice subscriber made it for me. I’m trying to remember who it was so I can get them to potentially edit future videos.
THE FASHION LAW ARTICLE: www.thefashionlaw.com/from-j-w-anderson-and-converse-to-telfar-and-gap-the-big-brand-x-creative-collab-is-coming-under-the-microscope/ A-COLD-WALL SS20 REVIEW: ruclips.net/video/WwbBkR3lawU/видео.html WHO IS J.W ANDERSON: ruclips.net/video/Uv3_UJ2Ujfo/видео.html EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MONCLER GENIUS: ruclips.net/video/IoP5fIbJEcE/видео.html
I think you have to consider two things in addition to this. All designer collabs are a marketing campaign for the general release version of the product. They don’t make any money on the actual collab, though sales pay for the project somewhat. It is naive for anyone in the fashion industry to not expect this strategy considering it is repeated nearly every week with a different shoe. The idea of developing a new silhouette with a designer may be a new format of doing this, using the collab to not only promote but launch the product. However, you have to consider, most of the design work actually would have been done by converse with maybe the original idea coming from anderson, and approvals along the way, the technical work as well as merchandising would have been done by Converse. Another story tangential to this is JW Anderson’s semi-recent appointment of social media exec who is pushing and utilising all social media strategies, including stunts. One example may be the use if tiktok and the whole Harry Styles cardigan challenge; but also they understand that outrage and diet-prada marketing is a big thing now and from what I understand this was one of those plays. It would take a full video or series just to analyse JW Anderson’s social media strategy and how they use some techniques use by trolls and drama based influencers for high fashion. Is it playing dirty, possibly unprofessional considering you know the legality of the situation? Does that even matter? Cause after doing a sympathy follow people forget and move on, now part of their social audience. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Haha I totally agree. I find it hard to buy this whole thing where Jonathan was acting like he didn’t know this would be the outcome but it’s definitely playing dirty but it’s playing dirty within the rules. It’s left to designers to weigh the pros and cons and live with their decision. Not make an informed decision and complain after. My point in making this video was exposing this common practice so that in the future designers truly understand what they’re getting themselves into when entering such discussions.
Your video on A Cold Wall drew me to this channel. I love the collab on ACW x Converse on both the grey and black sneaker boots. I admire Samuel Ross's vision. Recently, I was taken aback when Converse later copy pasta the product and replaced with Goretex material and selling it on their own without ACW. WTF man. Im glad you brought this up. Wonder if Samuel Ross' reaction to this?
I saw this the other day! Was shocked to say the least, but it's interesting to see that they added in the post on Instagram that they were originally designed by Samuel Ross this time around. I'm keen to see if Samuel Ross 'signed off' on that..
I am pretty sure this is covered by an exclusion clause on the initial colab he most likely has signed for before these boot iterations reach the production . So he would be credited for the design hues for those iterations and that was agreed to be used for the description for the marketing and for promotional purposes for the product .
I’m glad Jonathan Anderson spoke out! Converse/Nike was trying to be slick pushing out new versions of the run star hi’s without JW Anderson. I never got a pair of the originals because they sold out so fast, so I ordered one of the releases. When I found out it was not a JW Anderson collab I cancelled the order. It sucks when brands bring people in to collab, release a small amount of the shoe and then mass produce another version of the shoe. Jordan brand is doing it now with Union 1s and they released the Smoke Grey 1s this year. Travis Scott 1s, and the spin to be released dark mocha 1s. It’s a shame what they do to creatives.
Hmm I wonder how Tyler situation is different? More thorough with the contract I guess. I think his first original silhouette was Gianno this was released a year ago, I don't think I've spotted a Converse stand-alone version of that shoe yet
I just bought both pairs of the ACW collab boots and seen that they have the same silhouette on the site now. Kinda disappointed as I thought it was a one time silhouette created by Samuel Ross (I'm new to Converse so if they've used the silhouette before pardon me and maybe I should've read up on the collab and boot more) But they still look great to me just makes them less special.
Seems like they got hired as an employee and the shoe was released as a collab, at first, but it belongs to Converse. The artist got paid but the product belongs to the brand.
Thanks. I actually didn’t make it, a very nice subscriber made it for me. I’m trying to remember who it was so I can get them to potentially edit future videos.
just some thoughts from a law background although it sucks that jw anderson feels that he has been cut out of the collaboration, at the end of the day, converse and jw anderson were two parties that willingly entered into a commercial contract. the general assumption is that both parties understood the terms of the contract and their obligations under the contract before signing the contract and making it binding. regardless, generally where a smaller party works for a bigger brand, the contract will always provide the bigger brand claim over the IP for anything done or developed under them. (ownership for what is developed in exchange for access to converse's resources, IP, marketing, budgets etc.) the point being either way jonathan surely knew that whatever he develops under converse would be owned by converse. it is odd to point this out after the fact, especially like you said in the video, jonathan anderson would have had access to lawyers that would have clarified the contract to him. even if that wasnt the case, he has voluntarily signed the contract so he bound by this. if this was an issue that he only realised at a later stage of his partnership with converse, he shouldnt have developed this silhouette under converse
Well, first of all I’m happy you made this video, I asked your point of view on Patreon (by the way guys go on Patreon to support our G he deserves it for real) about this topic and you managed it well. Even though I’m now aware that Converse was within its rights to replicate JW’s design, I wish they told him, I mean money is important but they could have shared a bit, it’s not like Converse and Nike don’t make tons of money. Yet what triggers me the most actually is the timing of these duplications and especially with the current ACW Collab, like they dropped the OG GREY sneaker boot, which sold out real quick, after that they announced the black one, in between, seeing the success of the collab, they’ve teased new versions without the ACW logo in a few days, that really shows how hungry for money they are. They exploit frustration so well. The grey boot was very limited, the black one way less limited, now the General releases are gonna drop one every two months... I think converse could have done a better job here, I’m really happy with my acw converses tho still I’m sure they won’t do better colorways than those already released so I won’t even get mad about the new design, just hope Mister Ross got his chip through that mess Thank you Ayo for another great video, patiently waiting for your magazine to be out ! I’m sure it will be worth the wait !
I’d also add that people who feel there is kind of an injustice in this situation like I do, might be naive people who strongly believe in a world where art is our main focus and what should be put first in the discussion. The reality is way different tho and we cannot deny how business leads this industry we have to play the rules of this game, as sad as it may be !
How about the CX Disrupt, being released After the collab they did with Takahiromiyashita The Soloist? At least to me I saw the collab before the non-collab release. Very shady, also no surprise in the connection between Converse and Nike lol.
Spot on, I noticed it around the time Acronym released those Prestos. Nike also do it a lot with Supreme, collabing on some random ass shoe to build hype then following it up with a re-release of the classic shoe. Vomero 5 ACW dropped before the normal pairs were re-introduced to stores to name another example. Always thought these brands/creatives knew what they were getting into but clearly not I guess🤷🏾♂️
I think the difference there is that it's more a "revival" of a shilloutte rather than a blatant copy of the collaborators vision. The Vomero doesn't have the block on the back, the lack of poly coating and uses different materials. Same with the prestos, they didn't have most of the bells and whistles that the Acronym version did when they dropped the utility version.
They literally just did this with the skid grip midsole that Jerry Lorenzo did for his Fear of God Essentials collab. There are already multiple colorways, low and high top alike, that use the "Fear of God shape" for their midsoles.
Nah, I blame the game not the participators. The video was more pointing out a common thing that brands do when they could easily involve designers and make a profit but they’d rather cut out the designer and make maximum profit. At the end of the day J.W Anderson signed a contract that allowed them to do that and then complained after.
Do companies other than Nike do this? Adidas etc? Curious to know if it's just Nike group or not. Very slimy business practice that I'm glad JWA called out.
Yes! Nike has applied Virgil’s Off-White aesthetic to EVERYTHING (deconstructed design, unfinished details, text, etc...). Particularly AFTER they collaborated on “The Ten”...
It is hard to believe that Converse would go that far to exploit. Unfortunately, I purchased too many converse shoes including JW Anderson design stolen by Converse. I am stuck with them now, but I will never buy Nike and Converse again. Thank you for sharing it with us. 🙏🙏🙏
Jordan Brand did that after their Levi’s collab on the Jordan 4. They did a denim Jordan 6 but with no Levi’s branding. Anybody not paying attention might think they’re getting the next Levi’s collab, when they aren’t... not that Levi’s is some small brand but still the same concept.
I think another interesting similar move is when ASICS said that their official collabs with Kiko Kostadinov are over but he’s staying as a design consultant. So they take his name off the shoes but they retain his design skills. He agreed to it obviously but it smacks of big multinational brand using smaller designer once again.
Saying the J Anderson is rich doesnt mean much when you compare that to converse's revenue. Smaller personal brands might be worth x millions but usually have very dicey financial situations. Also at times there are assumed unwritten agreements before and sometimes after contracts which get reneged on as well.
I’m not surprised at this honestly. Uniqlo has collaborations with different designers every year, JWA being one of them. Each time a collection releases with a design or style with the collab, the following year it Uniqlo releases something similar with very minor changes to it.
I was about to say this. With Uniqlo U Lemaire, it is obvious they will produce a mainstream copy bec that is the purpose of having the Uniqlo U line anyway. With other collaborations, im pretty sure they made copies too but i guess it is not too obvious. The way i see it, the main company has the upperhand in these contracts. It is like let's say Hedi for Saint Laurent. What he created stayed with the company and still somewhat the blueprint of the brand
My opinion is he pretty much designed the shoe for them not his own collection it’s not like they stole one of his designs literally, he gave it to them in a contract. Soo I don’t really see the problem.
My opinion on this is that when a particular designer signed with a particular sports brand, the sports brand will incorporate a particular design of the designer and they will incorporate it in their products without being credited because they know it sells. I've noticed this since Virgil Abloh signed to collaborate with Nike and as a result, Nike used that deconstructed element of his design to their products particularly sneakers because they know it sells. It is unfortunate and a classic example of the exploitation of a giant company to a designer.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see a huge issue with them mass releasing a cheaper version of a collaborated sneaker/boot. I see this as something similar Nike does whenever they drop a collab shoe that’s popular (let’s say a air max 270 just for shits and giggles), mass release version for those who want the silhouette but can’t afford the collab. But with that being said they should credit the designers at the very least.
Love your content but you're making assertions that may not be so: 1. Collaborations are licensing deals where both sides agree who owns the IP and how much the creator will receive in total payment and profits. Nowhere does this say Converse didn't pay him what they agreed. 2. Converse owns the IP and JW Anderson knew that when he signed the deal. Like you said, JW Anderson is a wealthy man and could easily find an attorney to explain his rights if he agrees to the collab. 3. If Converse owns the IP, they can do what they wish with the design. If a creator wants to maintain proprietary rights to their work, don't sign them away. 4. Each collaboration is individual and gets negotiated by the particular parties so other collaborators may get better/worse deals. All that to simply say, JW Anderson wasn't robbed or taken advantage of. Converse is going business within their rights.
This is absolutely crazy! It’s such a harsh reality to think that business comes over people. I do hope someone in law comments because I’m curious how a product with J W Anderson’s name can be produced without his consent. Then that means it wasnt a collaboration in the first place. It was cheating. I can’t imagine being so excited that a brand that huge would want to collaborate with you and then it rips you off and stains what could have been a great relationship. The disbelief!
The take away is not "business over people" it's "business over business". Jonathan Anderson's brand is a full blown business that will make millions off of the publicity converse brings and it was all agreed on a contact that he signed.
There is no such thing as a copyright in fashion. Any company can copy any design. What is protected are trademarks, such as a Nike swoosh. This is so a company cannot monopolize essential items like a parka.
I came across this video while looking for a review of the "Converse Run Star Hike". I´m curious why you care about this Anderson dude, enough to make a video about it....😀
I think one solution to this for collaborators is to make the production cost/process so meticulous and unconventional that it would be a hassle for these brands to remake their designs lol, kim jones falling for the same thing soon you didn’t hear it from me though
Looking at past examples, won't be surprised if Converse recycle the newly sculpted unique heel mold/cast and change the upper to Goretex or something, and call it their own.
What you described is exactly how capitalism works, it's called monopoly capitalism. The logic is to buy up everyone who is smaller than you. JW Anderson likely signed away his rights to the design at the beginning.
Kinda abhorring how a multi billion dollar company will take advantage of a designer like this, knowing that JW Anderson produced for them some of their best and most profitable sneaker models within the past decade.
“Do fashion designers exploit accessible and classic working class silhouettes in order to add perceived greater value & re-market them to their target demographic of monied cultural parasites?”
I'm an attorney that works in intellectual property. Fashion design is generally difficult to protect because clothing is very similar. Generally the "branding" (logo etc) is what is protected. JW Anderson, I'm certain, had a lawyer go over this contract and explain this very thing would probably happen. I'm sure this situation was a "work for hire" meaning Converse hires you to make something for them but they own it and all rights to the design are theirs. This is generally standard where big business and creatives intersect.
The vibe I’m getting from the information I’ve read is that he was aware what he was getting himself into but it hit him hard when he actually saw it happen and expected they’d “do the right thing.” The problem with that is business doesn’t work that way. It’s very cut-throat
I think the general legal consensus that derives from cases like JW. Αnderson and all other footwear collaborations really , is that major brands towards fashion designers as collaborators have always the upper hand on the protection of the rights over the initial design or more to the point the actual model/silouette the collaborator choose to do 1) either variations 2 different interpretations using different colours station or changing the craftsmanship using different materials or 3 ) even a newish creation of a model based on an pre existing silouette initial design of other models presented in the past from the brand s vault especially talking about footwear . In all three scenarios the brand the label the name the insignia the storytelling and all parties concerned there of , the conception of the silouette itself are elements that constitute the trademark and in essence or by default they have the sole protection . So that's the first thing to bear in mind before entering those contracts . Sure . It depends on the character of the collaboration and the terms in contract itself . No 3 might seem the most debatable to many when it comes to a collaboration yet ptobably it's not . It might look that the collaborator being a high end designer or a young creative might do the most of it change everything making the final product almost un recognizable yet a fact remains . he has worked on a intellectual property that belongs to the major brand and all trademarks rights are protected since the actual initial design of this creation was conceived . If it is a whole new ish model based on previous models or prototypes from the vault of the brand still the rights are solid in respect of the brands creation and all elements that constitute the trademark . So yes bringing back Samuel Ross from A cold wall , he can add his bold militaristic touch on a Chuck Taylor to make it feel unique yet Converse since retaining the rights on the model they can distribute it through wider numbers or how they may see fit . A Ltd GR distribution perhaps at best . It's business and its all about shifting units . if they feel the demand over their product was boosted because of the colaboration they may well make more available variations of it to more consumers. It's not exploitation . First of all the model belongs to them and they wouldn't be any collaboration in the first place had they not entered the contract with the designer . So the designer wouldn't have a chance to enjoy the benefits / royalties of this colaboration after all . The appeal is specific . A high end designer that have an appeal to limited audiences have the chance to broader his appeal of his work and his individual artistic touch over a product that most of the times is known to be decades older than his own business .For footwear colabs is pretty obvious I think . The burden of the collaboration is kind of ethical . Not overriding on rights from the major party . It's not exploitation to allow a product that came as a result from a fruitful colab to enter the circulation with the same esque design hues adopted by the collaborating designer . Funny thing is sometimes this is not even the case . Let's set the record straight on this one . Off white and Nike . Nike keep releasing footwear with exposed the foam on the tongues and everybody moaning that' was Virgil idea from the "10 colab . No it was not . Nike was releasing running trainers with exposed foam parts since the 70s !!! Fair enough the deconstructed trend on all sneaker wear these days is his approach . But the devil is in the details . Not everything is his . The use of trasluscent material was introduced firstly by CDG and this is another one for the record . Other than that an exclusion clause can protect the designer as well even if it states that varied but not identical in description products conceived originally for the colaboration could see into a general release and availability . It is the protection of the trademark elements on the side of the collaborating creative this time around so no same marketing no insignia no signature design details should appear on the "variations" . Same but different is the general principle for those "variations " to be unleased from those sub contractual terms. It's a win win situation for both sides imo .
I concur this crystal clear answer from somebody with the same legal reasoning as mine .
What about ornamental patents?
Forgot to add that since Converse is owned by Nike, by extension everything to do with converse relates with Nike (the parent company).
Exxxxxxaaaaactly...great video and excellent points.
I think nike in particular is obviously trying this move all the time. Didnt work with Kanye and they've lost him now...
It really isn't a smart thing to do. Because yes they dont pay royalties but in the long term designers will stop working with the brand and that is a huge opportunity cost
Nike's been exploiting people since time lol
Wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was gona happen to the Feng Chen Wang collab down the line
its good to see JW Anderson speak out on this. Maybe people will think twice before collabing with Converse
This makes a lot of sense. I always wondered why Puma made (non Rihanna branded) creeper suedes right after Rihanna's creeper shoe came out.
I'm fairly certain all the necessary legal due diligence would have been performed prior to the contract being signed given the nature of the deal. Neither party is a small fry so they would have been lawyered up. Jonathan Anderson doesn't seem surprised from his post, he's disappointed. Converse were always allowed to replicate the design - that would have been made clear to him (accept it or don't collaborate with a sneaker giant like Converse, who can increase your exposure ten fold - who would say no?), but he probably wasn't expecting an exact copy without the J.W Anderson name. As a massive fan of J.W Anderson, he's right that it's a shame that it happened and credit isn't given where it's due now, but Converse are completely within their rights to do this.
That’s why I found the Fashion Law article really interesting because they stated that Converse were well within legal rights to do this. I guess Jonathan must have weighed up the pros and cons and decided he would get more from the deal in terms of exposure and marketing than he lost.
Didn’t know about the comme vapormaxes thank you
Loving that new intro
Thanks. I actually didn’t make it, a very nice subscriber made it for me. I’m trying to remember who it was so I can get them to potentially edit future videos.
THE FASHION LAW ARTICLE: www.thefashionlaw.com/from-j-w-anderson-and-converse-to-telfar-and-gap-the-big-brand-x-creative-collab-is-coming-under-the-microscope/
A-COLD-WALL SS20 REVIEW: ruclips.net/video/WwbBkR3lawU/видео.html
WHO IS J.W ANDERSON: ruclips.net/video/Uv3_UJ2Ujfo/видео.html
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MONCLER GENIUS: ruclips.net/video/IoP5fIbJEcE/видео.html
this man just never fails to upload fire content
literally binge watching all your videos. very helpful and articulate. thank you for your work!
I think you have to consider two things in addition to this. All designer collabs are a marketing campaign for the general release version of the product. They don’t make any money on the actual collab, though sales pay for the project somewhat. It is naive for anyone in the fashion industry to not expect this strategy considering it is repeated nearly every week with a different shoe. The idea of developing a new silhouette with a designer may be a new format of doing this, using the collab to not only promote but launch the product. However, you have to consider, most of the design work actually would have been done by converse with maybe the original idea coming from anderson, and approvals along the way, the technical work as well as merchandising would have been done by Converse.
Another story tangential to this is JW Anderson’s semi-recent appointment of social media exec who is pushing and utilising all social media strategies, including stunts. One example may be the use if tiktok and the whole Harry Styles cardigan challenge; but also they understand that outrage and diet-prada marketing is a big thing now and from what I understand this was one of those plays. It would take a full video or series just to analyse JW Anderson’s social media strategy and how they use some techniques use by trolls and drama based influencers for high fashion.
Is it playing dirty, possibly unprofessional considering you know the legality of the situation? Does that even matter? Cause after doing a sympathy follow people forget and move on, now part of their social audience.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Haha I totally agree. I find it hard to buy this whole thing where Jonathan was acting like he didn’t know this would be the outcome but it’s definitely playing dirty but it’s playing dirty within the rules. It’s left to designers to weigh the pros and cons and live with their decision. Not make an informed decision and complain after. My point in making this video was exposing this common practice so that in the future designers truly understand what they’re getting themselves into when entering such discussions.
Bro these are the kind of videos I've been looking for! solid stuff man!!
Your video on A Cold Wall drew me to this channel. I love the collab on ACW x Converse on both the grey and black sneaker boots. I admire Samuel Ross's vision. Recently, I was taken aback when Converse later copy pasta the product and replaced with Goretex material and selling it on their own without ACW. WTF man. Im glad you brought this up. Wonder if Samuel Ross' reaction to this?
I saw this the other day! Was shocked to say the least, but it's interesting to see that they added in the post on Instagram that they were originally designed by Samuel Ross this time around.
I'm keen to see if Samuel Ross 'signed off' on that..
I am pretty sure this is covered by an exclusion clause on the initial colab he most likely has signed for before these boot iterations reach the production . So he would be credited for the design hues for those iterations and that was agreed to be used for the description for the marketing and for promotional purposes for the product .
how has this only got 14k views? this is so lit, v unique and well researched ten ten content
I’m glad Jonathan Anderson spoke out! Converse/Nike was trying to be slick pushing out new versions of the run star hi’s without JW Anderson. I never got a pair of the originals because they sold out so fast, so I ordered one of the releases. When I found out it was not a JW Anderson collab I cancelled the order. It sucks when brands bring people in to collab, release a small amount of the shoe and then mass produce another version of the shoe. Jordan brand is doing it now with Union 1s and they released the Smoke Grey 1s this year. Travis Scott 1s, and the spin to be released dark mocha 1s. It’s a shame what they do to creatives.
same, I actually wanted to buy the JW Anderson one
Hmm I wonder how Tyler situation is different? More thorough with the contract I guess. I think his first original silhouette was Gianno this was released a year ago, I don't think I've spotted a Converse stand-alone version of that shoe yet
Because they have an ongoing partnership. He just released new ones this week iirc
Wow, LOVE that new intro!!! ❤️👏🏽
Everybody steals converse designs : no one bats an eye.
Converse re release their own previous iterations: everyone loses their shit.
I just bought both pairs of the ACW collab boots and seen that they have the same silhouette on the site now. Kinda disappointed as I thought it was a one time silhouette created by Samuel Ross (I'm new to Converse so if they've used the silhouette before pardon me and maybe I should've read up on the collab and boot more) But they still look great to me just makes them less special.
Nvm you mentioned it in this vid.. hadn't made it to that part yet lol
The new color ways will still not be as special or meaningful as the ACW releases
Intro and setup are looking beautiful, very professional :)
Seems like they got hired as an employee and the shoe was released as a collab, at first, but it belongs to Converse. The artist got paid but the product belongs to the brand.
I love the new intro
Thanks. I actually didn’t make it, a very nice subscriber made it for me. I’m trying to remember who it was so I can get them to potentially edit future videos.
Thay intro is awesome
It's really gooood
Keep up the good work, Ayo!
When I saw Jonathan Anderson's statement about Converse I decided to sell my general release Run Star Hikes.
Luckily I own hello kitty converse that I don't have to sell since the creators definitely made money
Lol what a simp. Just wear what you like. You care way too much of what people think
@@suavecito6114 😂😂 I didn't like them after a couple of wears then I saw the statement and lastly the resell value...
You know what I mean?
I remember seeing this same thing play out with Nike and the original black Yeezy colorway.
just some thoughts from a law background
although it sucks that jw anderson feels that he has been cut out of the collaboration, at the end of the day, converse and jw anderson were two parties that willingly entered into a commercial contract. the general assumption is that both parties understood the terms of the contract and their obligations under the contract before signing the contract and making it binding.
regardless, generally where a smaller party works for a bigger brand, the contract will always provide the bigger brand claim over the IP for anything done or developed under them. (ownership for what is developed in exchange for access to converse's resources, IP, marketing, budgets etc.)
the point being either way jonathan surely knew that whatever he develops under converse would be owned by converse.
it is odd to point this out after the fact, especially like you said in the video, jonathan anderson would have had access to lawyers that would have clarified the contract to him.
even if that wasnt the case, he has voluntarily signed the contract so he bound by this.
if this was an issue that he only realised at a later stage of his partnership with converse, he shouldnt have developed this silhouette under converse
Isn’t converse owned by Nike ?
Yes it is
Yup it is
Yeah it is
Haven’t watched any of your content in a while, sick intro!
Thank you JW ANDERSON. I LOVE THE RUN STAR HIKE shoes
Those Vapour Max’s were madd!!!
Well, first of all I’m happy you made this video, I asked your point of view on Patreon (by the way guys go on Patreon to support our G he deserves it for real) about this topic and you managed it well.
Even though I’m now aware that Converse was within its rights to replicate JW’s design, I wish they told him, I mean money is important but they could have shared a bit, it’s not like Converse and Nike don’t make tons of money.
Yet what triggers me the most actually is the timing of these duplications and especially with the current ACW Collab, like they dropped the OG GREY sneaker boot, which sold out real quick, after that they announced the black one, in between, seeing the success of the collab, they’ve teased new versions without the ACW logo in a few days, that really shows how hungry for money they are. They exploit frustration so well. The grey boot was very limited, the black one way less limited, now the General releases are gonna drop one every two months...
I think converse could have done a better job here, I’m really happy with my acw converses tho still I’m sure they won’t do better colorways than those already released so I won’t even get mad about the new design, just hope Mister Ross got his chip through that mess
Thank you Ayo for another great video, patiently waiting for your magazine to be out ! I’m sure it will be worth the wait !
I’d also add that people who feel there is kind of an injustice in this situation like I do, might be naive people who strongly believe in a world where art is our main focus and what should be put first in the discussion. The reality is way different tho and we cannot deny how business leads this industry we have to play the rules of this game, as sad as it may be !
How about the CX Disrupt, being released After the collab they did with Takahiromiyashita The Soloist?
At least to me I saw the collab before the non-collab release.
Very shady, also no surprise in the connection between Converse and Nike lol.
Love this video 👏🏽👏🏽
New intro 👌🏼
very informative, thank you
Spot on, I noticed it around the time Acronym released those Prestos. Nike also do it a lot with Supreme, collabing on some random ass shoe to build hype then following it up with a re-release of the classic shoe. Vomero 5 ACW dropped before the normal pairs were re-introduced to stores to name another example.
Always thought these brands/creatives knew what they were getting into but clearly not I guess🤷🏾♂️
I think the difference there is that it's more a "revival" of a shilloutte rather than a blatant copy of the collaborators vision.
The Vomero doesn't have the block on the back, the lack of poly coating and uses different materials.
Same with the prestos, they didn't have most of the bells and whistles that the Acronym version did when they dropped the utility version.
WHOOOAAA the intro!!
Alright, THAT intro is fire
They literally just did this with the skid grip midsole that Jerry Lorenzo did for his Fear of God Essentials collab. There are already multiple colorways, low and high top alike, that use the "Fear of God shape" for their midsoles.
love the intro
intro is sick
But am I a lame for buying one star hikes instead of the jw Anderson ones?
Nah, I blame the game not the participators. The video was more pointing out a common thing that brands do when they could easily involve designers and make a profit but they’d rather cut out the designer and make maximum profit. At the end of the day J.W Anderson signed a contract that allowed them to do that and then complained after.
Do companies other than Nike do this? Adidas etc? Curious to know if it's just Nike group or not. Very slimy business practice that I'm glad JWA called out.
Yes! Nike has applied Virgil’s Off-White aesthetic to EVERYTHING (deconstructed design, unfinished details, text, etc...). Particularly AFTER they collaborated on “The Ten”...
i love the new into
Fantastic intro
It is hard to believe that Converse would go that far to exploit. Unfortunately, I purchased too many converse shoes including JW Anderson design stolen by Converse. I am stuck with them now, but I will never buy Nike and Converse again. Thank you for sharing it with us. 🙏🙏🙏
Dude how manny designers and brands straight copy Chuck Taylor?
Jordan Brand did that after their Levi’s collab on the Jordan 4. They did a denim Jordan 6 but with no Levi’s branding. Anybody not paying attention might think they’re getting the next Levi’s collab, when they aren’t... not that Levi’s is some small brand but still the same concept.
I think another interesting similar move is when ASICS said that their official collabs with Kiko Kostadinov are over but he’s staying as a design consultant. So they take his name off the shoes but they retain his design skills. He agreed to it obviously but it smacks of big multinational brand using smaller designer once again.
Ooooh the intro tho 🔥
Saying the J Anderson is rich doesnt mean much when you compare that to converse's revenue. Smaller personal brands might be worth x millions but usually have very dicey financial situations. Also at times there are assumed unwritten agreements before and sometimes after contracts which get reneged on as well.
While I don’t endorse corporations stealing from designers, from what I’ve heard about JW as a person and employer, I don’t feel bad for him at all 😂
I love fashion tea so much ☕️ 😂😂
wait what's the tea
@@robyndabank1838 that he treats his employees like shit :/. He’s still a great designer tho
@@Trillmxtic wait really? how did u know. is there a vid??
@@sansshiber5060 nah it’s just by mouth. Ive got close friends who are very connected in the London fashion scene and he’s meant to be a arsehole
I’m not surprised at this honestly. Uniqlo has collaborations with different designers every year, JWA being one of them. Each time a collection releases with a design or style with the collab, the following year it Uniqlo releases something similar with very minor changes to it.
I was about to say this. With Uniqlo U Lemaire, it is obvious they will produce a mainstream copy bec that is the purpose of having the Uniqlo U line anyway. With other collaborations, im pretty sure they made copies too but i guess it is not too obvious. The way i see it, the main company has the upperhand in these contracts. It is like let's say Hedi for Saint Laurent. What he created stayed with the company and still somewhat the blueprint of the brand
cool video!!!
Do you think it’s because the company owns the design? Even tho they designed it? Like maybe it’s in the contract
Sorry I just finished the vid haha and see this is similar to what happened
why do I feel bad that I bought the converse run star hike
My opinion is he pretty much designed the shoe for them not his own collection it’s not like they stole one of his designs literally, he gave it to them in a contract. Soo I don’t really see the problem.
My opinion on this is that when a particular designer signed with a particular sports brand, the sports brand will incorporate a particular design of the designer and they will incorporate it in their products without being credited because they know it sells. I've noticed this since Virgil Abloh signed to collaborate with Nike and as a result, Nike used that deconstructed element of his design to their products particularly sneakers because they know it sells. It is unfortunate and a classic example of the exploitation of a giant company to a designer.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see a huge issue with them mass releasing a cheaper version of a collaborated sneaker/boot. I see this as something similar Nike does whenever they drop a collab shoe that’s popular (let’s say a air max 270 just for shits and giggles), mass release version for those who want the silhouette but can’t afford the collab.
But with that being said they should credit the designers at the very least.
Love your content but you're making assertions that may not be so:
1. Collaborations are licensing deals where both sides agree who owns the IP and how much the creator will receive in total payment and profits. Nowhere does this say Converse didn't pay him what they agreed.
2. Converse owns the IP and JW Anderson knew that when he signed the deal. Like you said, JW Anderson is a wealthy man and could easily find an attorney to explain his rights if he agrees to the collab.
3. If Converse owns the IP, they can do what they wish with the design. If a creator wants to maintain proprietary rights to their work, don't sign them away.
4. Each collaboration is individual and gets negotiated by the particular parties so other collaborators may get better/worse deals.
All that to simply say, JW Anderson wasn't robbed or taken advantage of. Converse is going business within their rights.
That's why you] always read the fine print in a contract
I actually bought a black and white pair of Run Star Hikes. I had no idea that Converse removed him for the equation. I feel horrible supporting that.
This is absolutely crazy! It’s such a harsh reality to think that business comes over people. I do hope someone in law comments because I’m curious how a product with J W Anderson’s name can be produced without his consent. Then that means it wasnt a collaboration in the first place. It was cheating. I can’t imagine being so excited that a brand that huge would want to collaborate with you and then it rips you off and stains what could have been a great relationship. The disbelief!
The take away is not "business over people" it's "business over business". Jonathan Anderson's brand is a full blown business that will make millions off of the publicity converse brings and it was all agreed on a contact that he signed.
There is no such thing as a copyright in fashion. Any company can copy any design. What is protected are trademarks, such as a Nike swoosh. This is so a company cannot monopolize essential items like a parka.
It makes sense that both Nike and Converse would do such things since they’re both under the Nike Umbrella
It is extremely sad to see how very obviously underhanded converse dealt with this situation...
It's the Run Star and not the One Star Hike.
I came across this video while looking for a review of the
"Converse Run Star Hike".
I´m curious why you care about this Anderson dude, enough to make a video about it....😀
No disrespect, great content, but I watch the vids on 1.5 x speeds. The speaking is just too slow
@Nilson Lee was just going to say that lol before I watched
I think designers in general, not just fashion.
I think one solution to this for collaborators is to make the production cost/process so meticulous and unconventional that it would be a hassle for these brands to remake their designs lol, kim jones falling for the same thing soon you didn’t hear it from me though
Conclusion: a lot of shoe manufacturers steal designs from designers
The title: how converse is exploiting fashion designers
What shocks me more is that anyone would pay more the 50p for anything by JW Anderson in the first place.
Ambush up next
If JW Andreson is as rich as you say it is mind-boggling why he would not have just put out that shoe under his own brand and left Converse out of it.
I hope they don't screw over Feng Chen Wang D:
Looking at past examples, won't be surprised if Converse recycle the newly sculpted unique heel mold/cast and change the upper to Goretex or something, and call it their own.
1.25 perfect speed 👌👌
What you described is exactly how capitalism works, it's called monopoly capitalism. The logic is to buy up everyone who is smaller than you. JW Anderson likely signed away his rights to the design at the beginning.
The common denominator here is nike
It's a converse shoe so it's their right to kick the designers out of the transaction after they pay them
Kinda abhorring how a multi billion dollar company will take advantage of a designer like this, knowing that JW Anderson produced for them some of their best and most profitable sneaker models within the past decade.
Nike can sue Warren Lotas but JW Anderson/ACW/CDG can't sue Converse/Nike
How Sway ⁉️
Me looking at my recently purchased converse 👁👄👁
Oh wow Im so late to the news, thats so shameful
Tyler the creator siting in the back with multiple shoes he hasn’t released
Love converse...i got Biden and Harris converse Chuck Taylor's. Love love them.
I think that it’s hilarious that fashion designers are complaining about converse. If those thieves don’t go somewhere 😂
Worth noting that Nike own Converse
Nike owns the design. They can alter it in anyway. It’s just the name of the game. It’s difficult to claim creative patents (oh, I know.)
Nike do shady business deals. wow shock, such a shame that a company started out of a van with a waffle press would do this to designers
I’m still gonna buy there products tho
👁👄👁
Converse is owned by Nike so no surprise
If Convers hires him to design a model, obviously they are using it.
Converse is owned by Nike, and they are shady af
Im kinda interested when they’re going to screw over tyler and steal the gianno
People just sign stupid contracts, JW''s own fault.
get a microphone, the echo is way too much
Converse is owned by Nike
“Do fashion designers exploit accessible and classic working class silhouettes in order to add perceived greater value & re-market them to their target demographic of monied cultural parasites?”
Thats another reasom i don't fuck with nike