What’s inside the Wavy Baby? Why Vans sued MSCHF
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- Get some premium American made leather belts and wallets here - Belts: bit.ly/3yWdqmk Wallets: bit.ly/3XHs6CL
Buy here to support the channel:
You can't, sorry they got litigated
Videos Mentioned
MSCHF Big Red Boots Review (Cut in Half) - • The Weird Truth of Big...
MSCHF Gobstompers Review (Cut in Half) - • Good Gimmick or Gobsto...
MSCHF Super Normal Review (Cut in Half) - • Nike Air Force 1 vs MS...
ROSE ANVIL CHANNELS:
Rose Anvil - @RoseAnvil
Rose anvil 2 - @RoseAnvil2
Rose Anvil Builds - @RoseAnvilBuilds
ROSE ANVIL EMAIL LIST:
Limited Edition - forms.gle/Q6osghGZ99WirJgb9
ROSE ANVIL LINKS:
WEBSITE - roseanvil.com/collections
INSTAGRAM - / rose_anvil
PATREON - / roseanvil
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
0:35 History
4:05 What Does MSCHF say?
5:30 Vans Comparison
6:45 Wavy Baby Breakdown
10:10 Cut in Half
11:10 Reveal
11:35 Is It Wearable?
#mschf #wavybaby #tyga - Jak na to + styl
Get some premium American made leather belts and wallets here - Belts: bit.ly/3yWdqmk Wallets: bit.ly/3XHs6CL
The MSCHF shoe was a play off the Vans Old Skool, not the Skate Low. The Skate Lo is a much newer silhouette if I am not mistaken.
Weird mistake to make since they show the old skool throughout the video
yes he even says that at 4:47 but somehow he sticks with sk8 low XD
@@puiaslick probably the closest shoe they had on hand
I don't see it
@@100percentMozarella just seems odd to not make the distinction, this channel is usually so thorough so I’m assuming it wasn’t intentional
I will never not be impressed with how sharp the parting knife is.
It’s a scalpel blade…
It’s a scalpel bruh.
It's actually an awl
it's not, scalpels typically dont have wooden handles. @@HungA.F.
I think the problem isn't that anyone would confuse these with skate shoes it's that the design and marketing is something a consumer may mistake as a Vans product. As for the defense that this is art so they can make whatever they want that goes out the window when you start selling them.
Are you saying if you sell something, it is no longer art? Limited edition sculptures or screen prints aren't art then?
@pantheratigris00 not exactly. At the time I wrote my comment, I mistakenly thought they made 400,000 of these shoes apposed to 4,000. If they were to have mass produced the shoes, I believe that Vans would have a much stronger case because if they were to mass produce them you could argue that doing so along with their marketing that mimics Vans own advertising could cause people to assume that Vans is somehow involved in the making of the shoes.
I even thought they were vans products I'm discovering now that they aren't...😂😂😂😂
@@LeviSungditto
Right. Somebody could see a person wearing them and think, “ew, why did Vans make those ugly things?” and that could conceivably hurt their brand.
But unfair to the Vans when you're comparing them to the wrong vans silhouette. Those are based on the Old Skool/Style 36
I don't see it
If there still in court you just made the argument for the defense you may have won him his case.
@@Brianwilkes78there or their?
@@Brianwilkes78 there their they're?
nerd
I thought these were a Vans shoe when I had first seen them. This video is the only reason I now know that they weren't.
Which is part of the reason Vans is justified in suing.
@@brianeharmonjr i thought "the fuck is vans doing" then i realised it was MSCHF and thought " i hope vans sues them into extinction"
You should've grabbed the Vans Old Skool low to make this comparison.
The main point is it is a trademark dispute. Copyright claims can be selectively enforced by a rights holder but a trademark needs to be enforced at all times. If a trademark isn't enforced the rights holder could lose it and have it deemed generic.
The reasons these brands go after things like MSCHF because they need to protect their intellectual property. If they don't sue, other brands may point to this as a reasons for them to actually copy vans design and create knockoffs. But that's just my opinion
If they had just released an unmodified Old Skool with their logo slapped on sure, but these should have been protected by parody law. They made substantial enough changes that it could be considered a new thing and a subversion of the original shoe, allowing these corporations to win these suits makes it harder in the future as cases can be based off the ruling decided here.
No, that’s literally why companies are as litigious as they are. They have to show a care for the IP in order to drive the copyright. It’s also why movie studios crap out ashcan versions of films…just to keep that IP in the portfolio.
Look at how hard Nike went after the ARI Menthol 10s
@@robloxpwnr7604but it isn't parody, legally speaking. This isn't expression, it's commercial. Parody isn't a vague catch-all defense.
@@sinisterthoughts2896I don't understand how you can legally distinguish between the two when art is marketed and sold like any other commercial product. Is it just that it has a practical use?
MSCHF saying that they are "sampling" the Vans style is fair enough, things like that are done in art. But if you look at music, if one artist samples another artists song, they have to pay to do that.
That didn't seem to happen here, so MSCHF can profit from using something created by another party without paying them their due.
Bingo
Not just pay, they have to get permission. And they aren't required to give you permission.
its not just sampling, if it was people would be "oh, thats kind of like a vans" but people i knew were like "dude, its clearly a dumb vans"
this is a trademark issue...i have to agree with vans on this one just like i agree with nike going after many companies that copy their shoes but change the logo just a bit.
What exactly is trademarked here, other than their logo?
@@jimnorthbound4440 any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or service.
@@jimnorthbound4440 their logo is more than enough, and the appearance can be enough. when people see it, they would say it looks like a wavy vans, which means it crossed the line.
@@jimnorthbound4440he explains what's trademarked in the video
@@jimnorthbound4440 the jazz stripe logo
As someone who loathes trainers and has no idea why some become so famous, I totally thought it was Vans who made the wavy baby as they [to my un 'trained' ] eyes look totally the same only distorted. It takes several seconds and close scrutiny to see that they are made by a totally different company. To me that is appropriation and the abuse of the Vans 'fame' to propel their comedy shoe on someone else's back. They could have made them completely different. But what do I know, I wear a 16 year old pair of Kappa trainers as houseshoes and am not ashamed. Meh.
As someone with a tonne of vans sneakers I thought they collaborated with Vans. After watching this video I still don't understand why Rose thinks Vans suing MSCHF was dumb given that these shoes wouldn't exist without the classic old skook design. They are piggy backing off of Vans just like they did with the Nike air max 97s.
@@atymoganetsi729 MSCHF are a troll company that is succeeding off other people/companies' IP.
I don't see it
Agreed. I think Rose has an irrational soft spot for 'independent' shoe makers or something, it's blatant infringement.
@@atymoganetsi729he likes the mschf so is rationalising it
I’m with vans on this, you can’t argue the fact they look similar but curvy.
Only when people who are in the creating industry will say it doesn’t look the same because they need stuff like this so their own items which they create don’t get sued.
yep, i just took a picture of vans old skool low and distorted it with the liquify tool in photoshop lo and behold, i made a wavy abomination like those things in the video lol
but the design is obviously different, its basically a parody which are usually completely fine
@@aidanmanson9007 this is not parody. Parody is commentary, this is product mass produced and sold for profit. Also, this is trademark which in this case is based on appearance. It looks like a wavy Vans, i.e. It looks like a Vans. I've commented to you before but you seem to ignore it when people explain to you how the world works.
@@sinisterthoughts2896touch grass
Google what a parody is
Mischief wanted the suite like they do on all their other parodies. Brings them attention and sales. They specifically designed the shoe to push a company like vans into protecting their IPs. The only way I can side with vans is if I think kids look at this shoe without understanding, see the price and the rapper and think it’s the “ultimate” vans. When in reality it’s nearly unwearable.
Not that it’s got to do with anything but the shoe is clearly a wavy version of the old school, not the skate low. The skate low came later as skate shoes needed more and more protection. It’s one of the oldest vans still in production along with their authentics
THIS! Both points on point!
As a piece of art I don’t see a problem with the wavy baby but as a shoe I do think it’s an issue.
Exactly. People keep saying 'parody', but this is a commercial endeavor, not art or expression.
@@sinisterthoughts2896Vans entire argument was that they were worried that people would think they were Vans and didn’t wanna be attached to the Mschf brand. Not realizing that no one would think they WERE real vans
To maintain trademarks, brands are required protect them. That's why companies like Disney and Nintendo will jump on anyone who uses their IP without permission, no matter how big or small.
i mean, i saw the waveys and first thing i thought was "freaky vans" its so obvious that vans is well in there rights to screw over mschf
I really enjoyed your video. As an IP and trademark law attorney, I wanted to make one point though. To keep trademark protection on a design or a logo or trade dress active, you have to police your own rights. So Vans, while arguably overly assertive in its prosecution of its rights here, technically had to go after the Wavy Baby or risk losing/diminishing their trademark protection. I think you’re totally right though, this shoe is clearly not meant to be a functional skate shoe and is not really threatening Vans’ market share in any meaningful way.
Again, great vid and I will never tire of seeing all these shoes and boots cut in half!
Legitimate perspective! Thank you.
If supposedly Van lose the case, that's a Green light for every person to start a company selling Wavy/weird version of Iconic silhouettes in the footwear history
And they will make bank not because they are creative but because of the brand/model recognition of those shoes
Not really dawg. The only reason it made money is because mschf made it. It’s not that anyone could just make a wavy version of a shoe, I’m not sure you know how it works 💀
I do kinda agree that it would be dumb for vans to lose tho. Mschf’s calling shit art but I don’t really find their stuff art since they just get tons of hype and sell shit for really expensive. That stuff always left a bad taste in my mouth and it’s kinda cheesy imo. But yeah not just anyone can do this. They built a reputation and that’s why they sold out
Favourite mschf product, by far. Not only because of the product itself but the fact that mschf looked at a vans sneaker and said, "Screw it, we gonna use this to make something cool"
The recent Supreme Court case Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products does not help this shoe's chances. The court found 9-0 that a product that was a parody of Jack Daniel's was trademark infringement, because the design was being used to make a commercial product identifiable to consumers. Seems very similar to this case.
@@Usureboutdat I don't understand what you mean with the second half of that statement. It seems without context.
@@sinisterthoughts2896 he essentially means that the wavy babies are recognizable by the public just because they are similar to the well-known style of the Vans products
I don’t know the details of the case. It would have made sense to approach Vans when it was in planning phase to get their permission. Detail the price of the shoe, art concept, limited number made, agree to give them a small percentage, etc. and move on with it or don’t. I am not surprised that they sued, even if I don’t agree.
It's mschf normal operation to break trademark claims then say it's art so it doesn't matter when the lawsuit comes in
Exactly. Get their blessing, pay them a commission, and it's win win for both of them.
its MSCHF, the only thing they care about is quick case with cheap stolen gimmicks
The issue isn't that consumers would buy the wrong product by mistake, it's that they could be misled into believing VANS has authorized or endorsed the parody or work of art. Being "art" is literally the problem, not the defense.
literally this is why the world would be better off freed of lawyers
@@Datpleb nah I like to live in a society with laws.
Yeah 100% some of the people who bought the Wavy Baby did so thinking it was an official collab
ho w
@@Datpleb nah lawyers are fine. Without the court system the only way to resolve conflicts is through violence, which is exactly why organized crime is violent. (ok technically court actions do carry the threat of state violence, but still...)
If it were one art piece I think they would be easily in the clear, but when you sell that many pairs at such a high markup it's very clearly no longer "just an art project" in my eyes.
It is so painful to watch Weston compare the wrong shoe, but to see the correct shoe AND wrong shoe on the screen back and forth the whole time.
I thought these were made by vans. I could see them competing with vans platform shoes, with the price difference attributed to being limited. Glad to see these on the channel though.
I don't agree here. When I saw them first time at some store on the internet, I thought it was Vans special release or collab with other company. It took me a few minutes to find what MSCHF is (never heard of them before since I'm not interested in art fashion) and my second thought was that MSCHF released it under Vans' approval or license and I was wrong again only to find Wavy Baby is NOT a collab and not a licensed product either.
If I owned a really big company like Vans, I would sue MSCHF or at least find peaceful resolution with benefits for both sides, despite the fact that I like what MSCHF does and support art in the war between art and corporates.
Gotta agree with Vans on this one. Complete ripoff. The entire basis of design of this shoe comes down to it being based on a classic designed by someone else, without the original Vans design these shoes are irrelevant. He should have done it as a collaboration with Vans or come up with his own unique design not based on their footwear which would have been truly original as an artist.
I don't agree with the ruling, but I get it. If you let one brand do an homage, you open the door for everyone do one. Would have been cooler if both companies talked it out and came to some sort of collaborative solution rather than MSCHF ignoring Van's request and Vans resorting to litigation.
to be fair by ignoring Vans he FORCED them to litigation.
Really appreciate your reviews and insight on these products. Thank you for the time, work, and dedication on these projects. Please consider a future review on the Danner quarry boots and the Russel Moccasin boots.
The adjustable belt loop you make is insane. I really might have to check that out. That’s one of the coolest innovations I’ve ever seen
i am not a sneaker head and i can definetly say this ones look exactly like vans . you work and art so u can definetly see the difference but when i first saw this shoes i thought this was a vans pair
Vans was clearly wronged here. I originally thought that the wavy baby was a collaboration with vans and mschf. Even whenever sampling is done in music, those artists are credited on the album and get some royalties.
As a sneakerhead, I thank the CZcams algorithm for this channel. subbed, love the videos and I can't wait to binge-watch them. I especially love the hat hehe.
I was wondering if you could do a video on the Ultra 4D shoes from Adidas. Curious what do you think about the tech they use.
I wear mine :) the front "shank" broke on mine as well, thats why they feel so soft now. Thanks for the Video :)
Am I the only one that got really happy when he broke the 4 wall and literally raised the curtain
I’m such a leather geek don’t know much but I just love love a good quality leather wallet or belt might have to pick me up one!
Shoes I would like to see compared on this channel:
- Jordan 4 SBs vs regular Jordan 4s
- Certified Lover Boy AF1s vs regular all white AF1s
- Travis Scott Olive AJ1 vs Travis Scott Reverse Mocha Low 1s (The Olives were made for women, so I'm wondering if they cheaped out on the materials even more because it sure seems like it)
- OG Jordans (from the 80s-90s) vs their retros
- A Ma Maniere Jordans vs their regular ones (I especially want to see the AMM 4s, since I have them)
- Tiffany AF1s vs regular AF1s
- OG Yeezy 350s Turtle Doves vs 2022 release
- Nike "By You" Dunks vs regular Dunks (a lot of people are making them & claiming the leather is better just because it's tumbled lol)
- Taft Boots vs other boots
- New Republic Chelsea boots vs other chelsea boots
Love seeing you debunk us Sneakerheads thinking a shoe is better quality than it really is. Lol
Some of those aren't going to come, there are like 4 videos on Air Force. Most of these limited runs basically use the same materials as general releases.
@@bri1085 True, I think most of them will be the same. Just would be interesting to see though imo.
Add SIA D1Y vs Kool Kiys and I’m With The List
Maybe if MSCHF would actually work with the brands when they created the shoes. They may find the brands are willing to work with them. It could be mutually beneficial.
Great video R.A 🙏🏽✨
Your review in this video just gave the point to Vans . Not Migschifs
Rose Anvil, can you do cutting of a X-Men Asics sneaker or the Homer Simpsons Stan Smith? BTW, I think Vans is right to sue, it's not the first time that MSCHF has tried to infringe on other peoples IP like their Little Nas Air Max 97
I worked at Vans when these came out, people came in daily and asked if we had them in stock 😭
would be really interesting so see you review other clothing items, such as jackets. winter is coming up, everyone wants designer, im just tryna get something good quality - because of your videos :D
Nicks recently released another collaboration with Heat Straps. It's a 1964 Brown leather chief coat with a wool lining
i was thinking smth parka styled, im sure he could get content. mostly just what brands are actually worth the money, and maybe technologies etc. @@bassplayer2011ify
The editor deserves a raise and a nice vacation
will you be taking a look at the gobstopper shoes when it comes to quality, I really want a pair but wanna know you opinion on them
"We stole someone else's design, made it worse in every measurable way, and charge three times as much for it. We call it art."
Love the videos 😍
That screen transistion was great. I saw momo in the corner!
The "problem" ist that even though Vans might even like the shoes, they had to go after MSCHF. If you have a trademark, you have to protect it. Otherwise you create a precedent where other companies can later say "See, you didn't do anything there, why are you suing us now"
I agree 100% with Vans. Of course, they're constructed differently. They have to be. Everything about these is based off the Vans...clearly a stolen identity.
It's not a "stolen identity" because it's for a completely different market segment. It's like you bootlickers didn't even watch the video. It's an art shoe intended to be a parody, sold in very limited numbers, and not intended to be worn regularly and especially not to skate. Do you support all the jackasses who wanted to sue Weird Al or other parody artists? Thankfully US law had common sense and allows parody of other media. Essentially you're not buying this shoe INSTEAD of a Vans shoe, which was the biggest part of Vans' argument and what the judge based his decision on with his idiotic "these might have Wave Babies" comment.
I don't see it
These are so cool, would look great as a showpiece in a display case too.
How do I find a pair to buy?
I dont see them anywhere.
There were only 4000 made and all were sold out. You'd have to get it from the second-hand market when/if a pair becomes available & due to the limited nature of them, their status as a collectible, & mischief's notoriety, it is bound to be quite pricey.
Vans wasn’t arguing that their shoes were being counterfeited. They were arguing their trademarks, etc. we’re being infringed upon. Defending trademark is standard, recommended practice. If you don’t, you can end up losing them. Cut some small, art brand some slack? Maybe, but there’s risk. As you point out, Vans shoes aren’t much different from other shoes - so what makes them special? Whatever that is, it’s what they’re trying to protect. There’s a very similar situation with guitars - check out all the Gibson guitar lawsuits and counter suits.
I don’t really see these as a commentary, and mschf is 100% using the marketing and history of vans to make a profit. But the shoes were limited and marketed outside of the price range of typical vans costumers, so even people buying vans for fashion weren’t choosing these over vans. I don’t think vans could claim damages. Though looking from the outside in, I could see a costumer getting confused thinking MSCHF got permission from vans to make this art piece, since the visual similarities are that obvious. It feels very much like corporate demanded art, looking at it.
I don’t see their price or limited stock as helping their case, I’d assume most would guess that it was a rare promotional/collectors pair of Vans.
And whether the customer would have bought a regular pair of Vans is irrelevant, if they bought these thinking they were made by Vans that is the issue.
They have to to maintain their trademark. If they don't protect it, even in smaller cases, they lose their claim to it. So they have to, and the rapper knew this, he's claimed he's going for lawsuits as free publicity.
@@14s0cc3r14 because one of the appeals of vans is they’re an easily replaceable $50-$60 wearable shoe. A one of a kind $4000 thing isn’t interrupting that market, since the markets are different. Notice how cars can be called “vans”, without interrupting on Vans’s trademark. Or Andy Warhol was free to copy the look of stuff like Campbell’s soup cans to sell his paintings. The trademark considers markets. But then you’d have to argue that the art piece shoe is a different kind of market than the shoe meant to be worn.
@@Tang-qi6zw Its more like saying “Ford can’t sell the Ford GT because it’s way more expensive than their other cars.”
They can and do, but not to the people who normally buy Fords.
Any idea how many boots(and other footwear) have you cut with that bandsaw? Or how many with that specific blade? Looks like it didn’t want to cut..
Legit always wanted to see those shoes on this channel
I mean it does look cool and it was only one small batch that never was going to seriously compete with vans, however i really think this was about what allowing this could mean in the future. If these kinds of products are allowed legally, that just means companies are going to more boldly copy the designs of other popular sneakers, which would be a terrible legal precedent for the entire industry, with way more cheap copies on the market
I'd love to see some content for us Canadians. For example. There is a brand called Roots that makes leather "Tuff" boots. Some are made in Canada and are supposed to be "higher quality". I'd love to see your take on them.
“Judge Kuntz” what a name lol
Thanks for another great video! By the way, have you heard of Westley Richards safari boots and shoes? I'd be interested to see if the price reflects the quality of them! Hope you can get your hands on a pair :)
You should do a video where you compare shoes in kids sizing vs adult sizing to see if they change technology. As well as gs and ps sizing. Love the content!
That's a pretty nifty idea.
Revealing how much you really know with the comments on the lawsuit
Thank you for the Phoenix Wright cameo, gotta love our Ace Attorney!
Definitely Vans was on the right, two warnings and they still went ahead and pushed the shoes out it clearly means they wanted all that smoke why didn’t they reach out for a collab? because they wanted all the money for themselves so of course they got sued it wasn’t for the “art” they were blatantly piggybacking on Vans from the shoe to the marketing
The cease & desist issued by Vans is completely irrelevant to the topic. I can issue a cease & desist to you to stop commenting, but it would have exactly zero legal weight. Cease & desist serves mostly as a scarecrow, it's not a breach of copyright or some kind of admission of guilt.
@@mystrdatit's not completely relevant and will be used in the lawsuit, it shows that vans was trying to enforce the trademark before the product was released
Can you please do a vid on the og Jordan 1s the 85s and 95s
The thing with these design infringement lawsuits is that often times the fear is that the brand might loose their base for further claims of design copying if they do not sue, kind of to maintain the strengths of the brand before court. That being said I am surprised this shoe is not a collab
Sometimes I cringe when the lace cuts the shoe in half. Today I appreciated it.
Vans gave MSCHF free advertising. This has been the whole business model of MSCHF, to push copyright and trademark. Many times they get this free advertising, sell out within minutes. Its a great marketing game they play.
I would love to see you cut open the converse pro suede. They have a label on the tongue that claim they’re specifically made for performance. I would love to see just how accurate or not accurately that statement is
Same, I was thinking of getting these but I'm waiting to see if Weston cuts them apart first
Given it's a converse, my hope wouldn't be high.
Can you please cut the new balance classic 574 in a half?😇 this would be so interesting for me
I actually really dug these as a vans old skool fan. I’d probably just have them up as a display type piece and not wear them though lol
You should cut open some on clouds! They’re stupid comfy but who knows why?
You need to do a video with the Vans New Skool
Can y'all do a video on nicks cowboy boots? I would love to see how they compared to chisos
Not really related to this video, but would be interested to see you cut apart the Altama Maritime Assault. Sort of a purpose-built Chuck Taylor
One of my favorite shoes. An $80 pair will last me almost three years of daily use.
i’d still love to see a Rick Owens Geobasket cut in half
Vans have a good solid argument here. But mschf wavy have an ingenious marketing ability.
Choose your fighter. Lets GO!!!
I'm hoping for a long mullet next year
Tons of people don't wear Vans for skating, it can be easily mistaken as an official collaboration, potentially all 4000 could've gone to people that thought they were supporting Vans
American law is often insane. Copyright and trademark laws are not ok, they are not helping, they seem to be there to promote corporate meddling, not to protect authors.
These shoes can not be mistaken for Vans, their design is original. "50 shades of Gray" was inspired by Twilight, but it's an original work nevertheless.
I honestly think that it's important that an item is not mistaken for other brand product, distinctly marked. Otherwise it could be almost a copy, I don't think anyone should be able to sue.
Crown the empire hat! I knew you had good taste in music! 😏🤘
To be honest I have to side with Vans in this case. The shoes look like warped Vans and if Vans allows this they don't defend their design/trademark, which can lead to a loss of exclusivity to said trademark/design. MSCHF should have worked out a license agreement.
A big problem is also that they are selling it as a product. And their defense is very weak. There is no "sampling" when it comes to trademarks. Also they ignored a court order!
As much as I'd prefer it to side with smaller companies, MSCHF brought this on themselves.
I think it's obvious that the wavy baby's look exactly like a vans old skool, just distorted and made wavy. That's not say that mschf shouldn't have made these shoes because they are cool, but it is clear that they didn't do much to change the look of the old skool's
I hope MSCHF appeal as it looks like US copyright law lacks clarity and is being applied inconsistently. Andy Warhol wasn't sued by the estates of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe for his screenprints based on their images but he was successfully sued by the photographer who took the photo his Prince screenprint was based on. Similarly, Marvin Gaye's estate successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copyright infringement over Blurred Lines but they failed in their suit against Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud so I'm not sure anyone could say with any confidence what the law does or does not allow.
Can you make a review about Puma Slipsteam? Love your videos friend
If you could find a pair of those newport methol jodans to cut apart that would be rad... that the earliest example of "artistic" hype shoes i can think of
I think if they had made a much more limited run, they could have gotten away with the art argument. But then Vans did just grant MSCHF the seal of infamy with the whole if it is outlawed, then it's even more desirable.
That's absolutely what MSCHF wanted, same as with Satan and Jesus shoes. They wanted the media attention and got it
Until this video, I thought Vans made those Wavy shoes, not MSCHF. So that is part of taking someone to court, that they mistake something for a known brand to could create a negative branding
Clearly should have been allowed as satire. If hypothetically, these had turned out to be the best shoes ever, MSCHF had started mass producing them, and didn't change the styling, or obtain a license from Vans, that becomes a different case. but what happened in reality, these are clearly fair use.
I want to see 3d printed shoes cut in half Adidas 4d (midsole) as an example.
If you want to make a piece of art as a commentary on consumerism you should start by not selling it for 220 bucks a pop number one. Number two every aspect of the design screams “I'm lazy”. It's on the same level as Supreme. And no attempt was made to distinguish it from Vans in any way. Had I come across these without seeing a video like this I would have assumed they were Vans.
I was pretty torn on the whole lawsuit thing since it was ment to be a piece of art, but you're pretty much spot on here
@@PsychoticLeprachaunit's not art, though. It is a mass produced commercial product. Thats like comparing the Mona Lisa to coasters with the image of the mona Lisa printed on it. It's a trademark dispute which basically means they claim he infringed on the look or iconography of something considered identifiable as theirs. It looks like a van, it's infringement.
Is there a channel like this only instead of review shoe quality, they review clothes quality. I would love to see that, we need that clothes are so over priced and the quality is getting worse.
Can we get the Alpinestars Supervictory? It’s an iconic boot, not a hypebeast sneaker.
Conflicted.
Obviously they look like they _were_ Vans, but on the other hand Vans itself wouldn't ever make these, so are they really competing? But if Vans doesn't defent itself this time, their shoes could become like Kleenex, and so generic that the courts no longer recognize them as unique.
Make a vid on ACG LOWCATE vs Tom sacks gps shoe
Makia boots might be interesting to see.
Please cut in half one design of the 3d-printed zellerfeld shoes
I'm surprised MSCHF didn't use the Parody Clause..
Which states "parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression"
If the MSCHF shoes were a one-of-a-kind piece I would absolutely agree that it's art and fair use and be right behind them, but they produced and sold thousands of pairs, clearly piggy-backing on the fact that they look like Vans to sell them. If they'd designed this shoe to look nothing like Vans but still wavy I think they'd still have been able to sell them to collectors due to the strange shape.
Curious if it could've been a collaborative project with Vans? Probably not, so MSCHF goes ahead with their cool idea for a weird shoe. Anyone who purchased a pair of Wavy Babies for their original and only run should be impressed with themselves for having a controversial piece of contemporary history.
Nice Crown the Empire Hat