The connection between punk’s pop cultural movement and the political ideology of ‘anarchy’ stems from the 1976 debut single from Sex Pistols: ‘Anarchy In The UK’. The Pistols weren’t actually a political or anarchist band, more of an art statement, and their reference to ‘anarchy’ was a statement of provocation and disgust rather than a manifesto. They did, after all, sign to three major record labels and fought tooth and nail for the money they earned.
However, their battle cry was taken as literal inspiration by many punk disciples, who adopted anarchy as a philosophy and lifestyle. Crass, the Essex band and communal collective, were the prime movers in this politicised brand of punk rock – with long-established counter culture pamphleteer Penny Rimbaud as their guru. Adhering to a determinedly alternative lifestyle and agenda, their music was raw and basic, but their presentation bold and intelligent.
Dave King, a former college mate of Rimbaud’s was already living in the Crass commune when Penny asked him to create a logo for his (Penny was a man) essay ‘Christ’s Reality Asylum’. As King explains:
‘The logo was designed to be easily stenciled, a quality that would become very valuable later on. Its basic elements were a cross and a diagonal, negating serpent, formed into a circle, like a Japanese family crest.’
A few months later, when the band was formed, the logo was adopted for that project too. Over the next thirty five years, the Crass symbol became internationally recognised as an indicator of the counter-culture in all its colours, appearing on flags, jackets, college bags and tattoos, time after time. As a brand, it has been a considerable success.
Naturally, because the logo is a token of freedom and anarchy, King never registered the design as a trade mark nor applied any sort of copyright to the image. But this hasn’t been a problem until now.
Recently, London fashion house Hardware co-opted the symbol, added a chain and copyrighted the symbol for use on their delicately named “Whorewear” range.
Unsurprisingly, King sees a deep irony in the addition of a chain to a logo for a band and movement which strove so hard to crash through what they saw as society’s restraints. Although he can hardly take action as he has no legal claim on his original design, having set it free all those years ago, his indignation is understandable.
Almost every successful corporate image, from the golden arches to the Nike tick, can only be deployed with the consent of the copyright holder – or hefty legal remedy is sought. But this logo isn’t corporate, quite the opposite, so an interesting question arises. If, from a sense of benevolence or adherence to a political creed, one releases one’s work to the world without a handy little TM, is it fair game for another entity to seize it and register it as their own?
I’m not sure there’s a precedent for this unless we include the crucifix (and any attempt to register this would surely be rejected). Legally, it appears Hardware are on pretty solid ground. The design is in the public arena, has no owner and is there for the taking. Morally, they may well have been smarter to offer King some recompense for the use of his work (if he rejected such capitalist notions, they could have offered a sum to a charity or cause of his choosing). The attendant PR would have benefitted their business and deflected any accusations of sharp practice.
But creatively, the clothes company has exposed itself. As designers of edgy outfits they must surely wish to demonstrate their originality and imagination. By purloining another designer’s concept for their label, they are merely illustrating their lack of creative thought and inspiration, as well as a dearth of integrity and respect.
As I write this, it seems Hardware is about to bow to pressure from online Crass supporters and relinquish their claim to the logo, but this does little to dismiss their rather shoddy attempt to rip-off a talented and skilled designer.
In short, the fashion house has made itself look cheap and grasping, while King emerges with his dignity and art intact. One of punk’s mottos was ‘do it yourself’, perhaps Hardware should take that advice.
‘The logo was designed to be easily stenciled, a quality that would become very valuable later on. Its basic elements were a cross and a diagonal, negating serpent, formed into a circle, like a Japanese family crest.’
A few months later, when the band was formed, the logo was adopted for that project too. Over the next thirty five years, the Crass symbol became internationally recognised as an indicator of the counter-culture in all its colours, appearing on flags, jackets, college bags and tattoos, time after time. As a brand, it has been a considerable success.
Naturally, because the logo is a token of freedom and anarchy, King never registered the design as a trade mark nor applied any sort of copyright to the image. But this hasn’t been a problem until now.
Recently, London fashion house Hardware co-opted the symbol, added a chain and copyrighted the symbol for use on their delicately named “Whorewear” range.
Unsurprisingly, King sees a deep irony in the addition of a chain to a logo for a band and movement which strove so hard to crash through what they saw as society’s restraints. Although he can hardly take action as he has no legal claim on his original design, having set it free all those years ago, his indignation is understandable.
Almost every successful corporate image, from the golden arches to the Nike tick, can only be deployed with the consent of the copyright holder – or hefty legal remedy is sought. But this logo isn’t corporate, quite the opposite, so an interesting question arises. If, from a sense of benevolence or adherence to a political creed, one releases one’s work to the world without a handy little TM, is it fair game for another entity to seize it and register it as their own?
I’m not sure there’s a precedent for this unless we include the crucifix (and any attempt to register this would surely be rejected). Legally, it appears Hardware are on pretty solid ground. The design is in the public arena, has no owner and is there for the taking. Morally, they may well have been smarter to offer King some recompense for the use of his work (if he rejected such capitalist notions, they could have offered a sum to a charity or cause of his choosing). The attendant PR would have benefitted their business and deflected any accusations of sharp practice.
But creatively, the clothes company has exposed itself. As designers of edgy outfits they must surely wish to demonstrate their originality and imagination. By purloining another designer’s concept for their label, they are merely illustrating their lack of creative thought and inspiration, as well as a dearth of integrity and respect.
As I write this, it seems Hardware is about to bow to pressure from online Crass supporters and relinquish their claim to the logo, but this does little to dismiss their rather shoddy attempt to rip-off a talented and skilled designer.
In short, the fashion house has made itself look cheap and grasping, while King emerges with his dignity and art intact. One of punk’s mottos was ‘do it yourself’, perhaps Hardware should take that advice.
