A world-famous British artist has won a court fight after suing an Argentinean winery for £150,000 over claims her work was copied for its Malbec labels.
Shantell Martin’s distinctive black and white murals saw her gain international recognition, with lucrative collaborations involving singer Kendrick Lamar and labels Tiffany & Co, Adidas and Puma.
The 44-year-old, who grew up in Thamesmead, south London, and first found fame as a VJ in Japan before moving to New York, was also handed an MBE by King Charles earlier this year.
But in April 2020, Ms Martin became locked in a copyright battle with winemaker Bodegas San Huberto Sa and British importer Marc Patch after complaining that her designs had been copied on over 18,000 bottles of Malbec.
The artist protested that the label for the winemaker’s Aminga Malbec featured drawings that appeared to be lifted from a site-specific drawing she created for her 2017 solo show ‘Someday We Can’ at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo.
She went on to complain that two more labels displayed on a further 500,000 bottles of imported wine also infringed on her work.
Ms Martin sued both companies along with Mr Patch claiming damages of ‘at least £150,000 ($200,000) based on the licence fee she said she would have expected had the Argentinean winemaker asked permission to use her work.
Now Judge David Stone, at London’s High Court, has ruled that the first of the three labels the artist complained about – created for the winery by an independent designer – did indeed copy her work.
Shantell Martin (pictured) won a court fight after suing an Argentinean winery for £150,000 over claims her work was copied for its Malbec labels
A case of the Malbec wine from Argentina which led US-based British artist Shantell Martin to sue for copyright infringement
Ms Martin grew up in southeast London and has spoken of experiencing racism during a tough childhood as a mixed race child on a predominantly white estate.
She graduated from Camberwell College of Art and Central St Martins and in 2003 moved to Tokyo where she had the idea that she could project on nightclub walls drawings that she made live while playing music.
She became a popular Tokyo VJ before moving to New York, where she made her name in the US and world art scene.
Much of her work is improvised, drawn live with a black and white marker often on a huge scale and incorporating text, map-like landscapes and human faces
Some of her best-known work was installed in New York’s Calatrava World Trade Center Oculus Transit Station and asked, ‘WHO ARE YOU’ and answered, ‘YOU ARE YOU,’ adding the question, ‘ARE YOU YOU.’
In the last decade, she has enjoyed high profile collaborations, including with Kendrick Lamar, fashion labels Max Mara, Puma, Tiffany & Co, Adidas and The North Face.
But she complained in 2020 that her work had been copied on the company’s wine labels without her being contacted to arrange an official collaboration.
Following the initial complaint, the winery had the label redesigned twice, with GM Drinks importing around half a million bottles with the new designs.
Ms Martin’s is seen here working on one of her distinctive black and white murals. Her designs have seen her gain international recognition, with lucrative collaborations involving singer Kendrick Lamar and labels Tiffany & Co, Adidas and Puma
But going on to sue, Ms Martin claimed that the two new labels also infringed her work and demanded $200,000 on the basis that it was a typical fee she would arrange for such a commercial collaboration.
Judge Stone found that although the company did not know about the copying until she complained, Mr Patch’s company Hampshire-based GM Drinks Ltd was liable for selling infringing bottles in the UK, while both the winemaker and Mr Patch personally also shared some joint responsibility.
Giving judgment, Judge Stone said: ‘Even though GM Drinks did not know it was doing anything unlawful, it was,’ and added that the winery and Mr Patch were jointly liable in relation to a small number of bottles sold after Ms Martin’s initial complaint.
But he added that the vast majority of the bottles either didn’t infringe on her designs or were sold before the companies were aware of the problem.
This means the amount in damages she would be entitled to will be much less than her claim, as the judge said the case was suitable to be decided at a court where claims are less than £10,000.
GM Drinks had only made a profit of £924 from the bottles the judge ruled had infringed her work, the court heard.
He said: ‘Correspondence indicates that the claimants requested US$200,000 from the defendants, that being a sum said to reflect the amounts Ms Martin usually receives for her collaborations with third parties. Counsel for the claimants before me put this based on a reasonable royalty that would be agreed in the circumstances.
‘It is not pre-judging the matter to remark that each of the collaborations that was in evidence before me was very different to the infringement that I have found in this case.
Ms Martin at work on one her designs, which are often drawn on a huge scale and incorporate text, map-like landscapes and human faces
‘The claimants are now also aware that the vast bulk of the products, being the third label products, do not infringe. Further, the low volume of first label products overall, and the very low volume dealt with from shortly after 13 April 2020, mitigate against a reasonable royalty at that level.’
He said the parties would be given time to try to agree an amount in compensation in light of his findings, but added: ‘If that cannot be done, I would propose transferring the quantum proceedings to the small claims track of the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC) and will hear the parties’ submissions on that proposal.’
