Dupes have been around forever. Walk down any street in New York City and you will inevitably stumble upon a street vendor with his wares nicely laid out on the sidewalk on top of a giant sheet ready to gather up the corners and run. However, I think there really is a broader question here about the morality of said “dupes.”
First of all, the word “dupe” is having a moment in the pop cultural zeitgeist. I might be showing my age here, but I remember when we were calling reproductions “knockoffs.” These words are essentially the same, but the feeling they give off is inherently different. Knockoff just feels bad. It legitimately feels like you are ripping off and stealing the design of another artist, while the term dupe sounds innocent and fun. It’s just a dupe. No worries. I mean, I can’t afford the real thing right? Where’s the harm?
Right. Where’s the harm?…
Referring to a dupe as the real deal on social media in front of millions and millions of people. That’s the harm.
This is what has landed Kim Kardashian and her design team for the SKKN by Kim office, Clements Design, in a copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false endorsement lawsuit with the Donald Judd Estate.
Yikes. I don’t care much about Kardashian fodder because their names seem to come up almost daily in the headlines and who can keep up? (See what I did there?) But, this one piqued my interest because of the nature of copyright infringement of an artist’s work.
This all finally came to a head a few days ago with the announcement of the lawsuit, but the original video that started negotiations following the complaint from the Donald Judd Estate was released on Kim’s YouTube channel back in August of 2022 titled “Welcome to My Office! SKKN by Kim Office Tour.”
In the video we see Kim taking the audience through her office and naming the work of other artists that are all over the room like the legitimate Vanessa Beecroft art as she makes her way towards these two giant tables that span the kitchen / lunch / workspace. She then refers to them as “these Donald Judd tables,” and pulls out the seat elaborating “are really amazing and totally blend in with the seats. And they’re so easy.”
Turns out. WE have been duped. These are totally fake.
A few questions here. After reading the complaint filed by the Donal Judd Estate, I have to wonder if Kardashian herself even knew that they were copycats? I’m sure at this point in time she is obviously aware that the pieces in question are dupes and not the real thing. Now her design firm manufactured the look- a- likes, which I’m sure they have done for many a high net-worth client, but I have to wonder if Kim even saw the invoice? Did she know that they were “in the style of” or did she think that there actually were Donald Judd tables in her office? We know that there are so many layers of people in Kardashian’s life that it could be that her designer knew, but she did not. For that matter, she might never even have seen the invoice. The designer, the assistant, etc. etc. did but not her. Following the chain of command. These people around her all hired and entrusted to carry out her wishes, but in the accompanying documents, it was made clear that Waldo Fernandez, her designer, was indeed aware of Donald Judd and his work. The tables are even arranged in the office to almost mimic the installation in Judd made himself in Marfa, Texas.
She had to have known. Right?
Also, just by being Kim Kardashian everyone around her should have known that this would not be a copycat manufacture that would never be seen by the public eye. She was obviously going to show it off because she lives her life in front of a camera.
And here is where the sticky copyright trademark infringement conversation lives.
How can an artist keep their work and their art safe in the age of social media? Anyone can stitch or remix a video or take an idea you came up with and record it themselves. They might even go viral while the original creator is never credited. Dupes are created all of the time by fast fashion companies and smaller sellers to mimic designer wares at a more affordable price.
The Donal Judd La Mansana Table sells for $90,000 and each Chair 86 is $9,000. I understand how a regular person would love the look of these tables and want something of this style for their home and decide to call a custom carpenter to build it for them at a much lower price. However, it’s Kim Kardashian. If anyone could buy the real thing, wouldn’t it be her? And doesn’t she have have the responsibility of purchasing the real thing especially because she is going to show it off?
Her saying that those tables are Donald Judd tables is a false endorsement. Being in the public eye automatically puts her under a certain level of scrutiny. It doesn’t matter if someone made a mistake with the copy for the video, she was unaware it was manufactured by the design team, or she just straight up lied. There is a certain due diligence here that was ignored from everyone involved. And by saying that her table IS a Donald Judd, she is aligning herself with the Donald Judd brand and trademark. However, her table is made of plywood and the Donald Judd estate does not make the table in plywood. See the problem here? False representation of the product while aligning herself with a brand that isn’t hers. Whoops.
In terms of art being remixed, repurposed, or reused, I think we all have the responsibility to credit the original creator. In terms of “dupes” being manufactured, we should not try to pass off the fake as the real thing. If social media is taking a trend toward authenticity and true day in the life content, then maybe we show off our dupes as that DUPES. If we are inspired by or use a portion of another artist’s work in our own, I think it is important to credit the original artist.
Owning up to what we have borrowed from or been inspired by is one of the biggest forms of admiration you could give another artist and they deserve that credit.
But Kim, maybe don’t say it “is” something when it was only “in the style of”.
Maybe one should not be showing off? Just a thought