Power of “x”: Legal Questions and Possibilities of Artist x Brand Collaborations

December 1, 2025

A Louis Vuitton bag with Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa; an Alexander McQueen x Damien Hirst scarf collection; an Elsa Schiaparelli dress featuring Salvador Dalí’s lobster motif.

By Natalie Kawam Yang

Consider Mona Lisa – arguably one of the most recognizable paintings in Western art – printed on a canvas tote bag, the back of a t-shirt, a 5×7 postcard, or a mug.^[1] It is widely accepted that the image of this painting, in whatever reproduced form, is owned by and owed to the purchaser. Of course, anyone can manufacture the oil painting’s likeness however they want and make a profit doing it; two-dimensional reproductions of “Mona Lisa” pose no legal harm since the painting predates copyright law by more than five hundred years.^[2] Moreover, manufacturers of objects displaying the reproduction do not have to worry about compensating or crediting Leonardo da Vinci for his intellectual property, as he cannot benefit from anything beyond posthumous acclaim.^[3]

Yet, consider collaborations where no artistic elements are in the public domain; collaborations are dependent upon living creators, think Kaws, Jeff Koons, Robert Indiana, and compensation, representation, and recognition of artistic property are due. There is no uniformity in how retail companies and artists alike operate when it comes to forging a collaboration that results in a product for sale.

This threshold for mutual opportunity between artists and for-profit organizations is not uncharted territory. A preeminent advertisement of the twentieth century was in 1985, when Absolut Vodka commissioned Andy Warhol for a marketing campaign called “Absolut Warhol”.^[4] The artist painted an Absolut Vodka bottle in his signature style: on a silkscreen, using splashy neon and primary color blocks.^[5] The artwork was then promoted through mass commercialization: billboards, posters, magazine advertisements, etc. In short, Warhol’s famous style, which instigated the Pop Art movement that elevated commercial object prints into blue-chip art domains, was spun into gold (or rather, Absolut Vodka brand equity).^[6]

Defining “Art Object”

Some forty years later, the artist-brand collaboration strategy has evolved. Artists are increasingly commissioned by retail companies (most often luxury fashion houses) as collaborators to integrate their bespoke style with apparel, pieces that people can use and wear as their own, which pushes well beyond producing works exclusively for advertising purposes.^[7] These art objects are the result of two worlds colliding – art and product – where the successful evocation of personal impression, sentiment, and resonance from regarding artwork meets the goal of selling individual utility, possession, and agency with the purchase of a good. The rise of the art object offers a new mode of interacting with and owning art, providing an elevated and meaningful experience of adornment and personal expression. Setting aside the nuanced and often polarizing discourse concerning the commodification of art as an intriguing topic for another article, there is great potential for a win-win scenario through these collaborations. Brands generate cultural relevance while diversifying their product offering, as well as scale and maintain customer loyalty; artists showcase their craft to great audiences on high-visibility platforms and pad their portfolio with a layer of prestige and commercial saleability; and, customer-patrons are offered the opportunity to identify with artifacts to treasure with a deeper sentimental dimensionality.

Naturally, the formalization of the collaborations that produce such art objects for purchase prompts thorny, ever-growing legal questions about intellectual property and art law. Should brands offer artist collaborators carte blanche when creating a product that will ultimately be associated with and sold as a product under their name? Is it fair for brands to expect their artist collaborator’s designs to integrate their logo or moniker into the commissioned product? What is an appropriate profit agreement between the brand and artist? How can a potential power imbalance between a fashion house and an artist be responsibly checked? Who gets to decide what terms are considered fair?

These are unprecedented questions of agency amid the blurring lines of creative IP ownership, and there is no uniform blueprint for how to define what agreement types are legal, let alone fair. In addition, there has been a notable increase of third party collaborations in the past decade, making the need to answer these questions all the more pressing; Marc Jacobs, during his tenure as creative director at Louis Vuitton from 1997-2014, collaborated on campaigns with Richard Prince, Takashi Murakami, and Yayoi Kusama; in 2016, Dior announced its first annual roster of artists for the Dior Lady Art series; in 2021, LOEWE launched a three-year campaign with the Ghibli Museum.^[8] There are a myriad of benefits available to collaborating parties as well as their collective audiences. On the other hand, disputes such as Koons v. Rogers and issues surrounding the Basquiat Estate licensing illustrate the real-world consequences of lacking standardization in legal agreements, resulting in costly litigation and public friction.^[9] Through a close legal analysis of high-visibility artist-brand collaborations, it is possible to standardize and epitomize legal precedent for these kinds of projects, thereby democratizing the process of forming such collaborations, which is typically available only to conglomerate brands and blue-chip artists.

A Study of LOEWE x Ghibli Museum

In June 1985, Studio Ghibli, a Japanese animation studio, was founded in Tokyo by animator-directors Miyazaki Hayao and Takahata Isao, and producer Suzuki Toshio.^[10] Today, it is internationally acclaimed for its films of exemplary storytelling and original artistry, its most famous productions including “Spirited Away”, “Howl’s Moving Castle”, and “My Neighbor Totoro”.^{[11] [12]} The Studio’s productions feature original storylines with complex characters that explore themes such as coming-of-age, friendship, Japanese culture, nature, and war.^[13] Elaborate sceneries showcase a great focus on color palette, character facial expressions effectively convey emotional nuance, and plots are remarkably fantastic and layered.^[14] Each film, created by hand, demonstrates a palpable respect for the audience’s ability to engage with and enjoy the magic of imagination. It is without question that, despite the tendency of highly commercialized cinema to dilute craft over time, the Studio’s productions have not wavered in their authenticity or commitment to artistry in their forty years. This does not mean, however, that the Studio has rejected new ways to connect with its audiences.

In 2021, Spanish luxury fashion house LOEWE announced a “craft-led capsule” with the Ghibli Museum, which was founded to showcase and celebrate elements of Studio Ghibli films.^[15] In a statement, LOEWE FOUNDATION President Sheila Loewe said:

“We are very proud to support the Ghibli Museum, one of Japan’s most beloved creative institutions… We look forward to becoming a part of their story, helping to share the unique charm of the Ghibli Museum around the world.”^[16]

In tandem, Ghibli Museum’s Managing Director Kazuki Anzai said:

“We are delighted to see LOEWE, a maison with craftsmanship at the core of its identity, and Ghibli Museum, who communicates the warmth of handcraft through animating thousands of drawings, come together.”^[17]

The partnership produced three celebrated collections of apparel and leather goods over the course of three years.^[18] What is noteworthy in these official statements about the joint venture is the position each spokesperson takes about the other – a focus on the intention of handcraft and uniqueness as shared elements in their respective identities as institutions. The products themselves, which emulate characters or other memorable elements from the films, utilize techniques such as embroidery, appliqué, and leather intarsia to recreate the texture, structure, and vividness of the subjects brought to life.^[19] Promotion strategies included a link to a physical retail experience on the LOEWE website, as well as social media features and brand ambassador photoshoots.^[20] The LOEWE logo was consistently present and integrated into product design.

Examining Legal Signals of a Healthy Creative Collaboration

If one accepts that this collaboration was successful not only for its buyers and enthusiasts, but also for both collaborators to the point where the working relationship produced three sequential renditions of the campaign, then there are lessons to glean from a legal perspective. While there are no official records of what are likely dense contractual agreements between LOEWE and Ghibli Museum, it is possible to hypothesize the licensing that was crystallized into a legal framework based on the information that is available.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of key indicators of licensing most likely outlined between the two parties, paired with their corresponding, non-exhaustive list of potential legal claims had a disagreement arisen:

• Joint creative oversight, or an agreed-upon creative mode of conduct to ensure craftsmanship is consistent with depictions of animations, the quality of products typically produced and sold by the brand, and the art objects produced, was to the satisfaction of both parties.^[21]
  • Risk: Trademark Infringement,^[22] Brand Dilution/Reputational Harm,^[23] Copyright Infringement^[24]
• Trademark/merchandising rights, such as the use of film names, film character names, and/or likenesses, as well as brand logos and monickers .^[25]
  • Risk: Infringement Claim^[26]
• Adaptation rights, given that products went beyond simple two-dimensional image reproduction and incorporated textiles/three-dimensional materials to emulate and enhance the animation’s likeness.^[27]
  • Risk: Copyright Infringement^[28]
• Marketing/promotional rights, including editorial photoshoots with the products and Studio Ghibli imagery, animated films, behind-the-scenes photos and videos, immersive and pop-up installations, press events, and more.^[29]
  • Risk: False Endorsement Claim^[30]

It appears LOEWE x Ghibli Museum successfully navigated their venture by considering the above (at the very least). Examining their strategy as a case study and anticipating the factors most likely to arise, both sides of any negotiation table better understand the permissions and limitations of creative license and can apply those learnings to a contract of their own. As previously mentioned, this is typically an expensive and, therefore, exclusive process limited to parties who can pursue artistic collaboration as a winning strategy. Instead, even high-level considerations like the above enable brands and artists of varying accessibility to pursue this avenue.

Conclusion

The production and sale of art objects fabricated through an artist-brand collaboration agreement straddles connoisseurism and consumerism, signature creativity and brand equity, craftsmanship and sponsorship. Collaborations can crack open a myriad of creative, financial, and reputational possibilities for both parties, and they can deepen an audience’s appreciation not only for art, but also for their own taste – something consumerism rarely addresses in a genuine, authentic fashion. Such agreements require significant IP scaffolding constructed with uniformity that is dependable yet specific to the deal it supports. However, precedent for these agreements being made at an increasing rate is not yet clearly established, leaving potential pitfalls for all parties to compromise.

One approach to addressing this complex issue is to scrutinize the publicly available elements of high-profile deals – such as the LOEWE x Ghibli Museum collaboration – and extrapolate licensing patterns; it is then possible to create a blueprint that can be replicated in collaborations of all scales. This not only broadens access between artists and brands of differing power dynamics (such as artists who otherwise lack the means for robust legal representation, or emerging brands reaching out to work with blue-chip artists), but also increases the likelihood of securely protecting the IP rights of all involved. The potential for future artist-brand partnerships is exponential; legal precedent should reflect and anticipate this forward movement generated by the expanding creative spheres.

About the Author:

Natalie Kawam Yang is the founder of Gesso House, a creative agency that develops strategic collaborations between innovative brands and contemporary artists. With a background in product and partnership management and brand strategy, she has collaborated with Fortune 200 executive teams as well as blue-chip galleries and artists on initiatives involving narrative development, commercialization, and creative alignment. She holds a B.A. from Barnard College of Columbia University.

Select References:

1. Alicja Zelazko, Why Is the Mona Lisa So Famous?, Encyclopædia Britannica (Aug. 4, 2025), https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-the-mona-lisa-so-famous ↑
2. João Valadas Coriel & António Vieira, Copyright Mona Lisa? For the Louvre of God, Valadas Coriel & Associados (Apr. 14, 2025), https://www.valadascoriel.com/copyright-mona-lisa-for-the-louvre-of-god/ ↑
3. What Is Intellectual Property?, World Intellectual Property Organization, https://www.wipo.int/en/web/about-ip ↑
4. Andy Warhol, Absolut Vodka (1985), National Galleries of Scotland, https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/93233?utm ↑
5. Id. ↑
6. Andy Warhol, Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andy-Warhol ↑
7. The Evolving Landscape of Art and Fashion Collaborations, Art in America, Nov. 15, 2023, https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/evolving-landscape-art-fashion-collaborations-1234686637/?utm ↑
8. The Evolving Landscape of Art and Fashion Collaborations, Art in America, Nov. 15, 2023, https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/evolving-landscape-art-fashion-collaborations-1234686637/?utm ↑
9. Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992); Basquiat v. Brant Foundation Art Study Center, No. 1:19-cv-10125 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 31, 2019) ↑
10. Studio Ghibli, Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/money/Studio-Ghibli ↑
11. Works, Studio Ghibli, https://www.ghibli.jp/works/ ↑
12. Miyazaki Hayao, Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Miyazaki-Hayao ↑
13. Id. ↑
14. Id. ↑
15. Tokuma Memorial Cultural Foundation, LOEWE Foundation, https://www.loewe.com/usa/en/stories-loewe-foundation/tokuma-memorial-cultural-foundation.html?epik=dj0yJnU9STV2YkNoejNUeHhsa3JpRWpJNlJrOWx0X2VFWnRtTEcmcD0wJm49ck1aX3lvRDBfdkhXR3pDR2VSdzZFQSZ0PUFBQUFBR2pjT1JR ↑
16. Id. ↑
17. Id. ↑
18. Tokuma Memorial Cultural Foundation, LOEWE Foundation, https://www.loewe.com/usa/en/stories-loewe-foundation/tokuma-memorial-cultural-foundation.html?epik=dj0yJnU9STV2YkNoejNUeHhsa3JpRWpJNlJrOWx0X2VFWnRtTEcmcD0wJm49ck1aX3lvRDBfdkhXR3pDR2VSdzZFQSZ0PUFBQUFBR2pjT1JR ↑
19. Id. ↑
20. Id. ↑
21. See 15 U.S.C. § 1055 (2024); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (2024) ↑
22. Id. ↑
23. Id. ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. Id. ↑
26. See 15 U.S.C. § 1055 (2024); 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (2024) ↑
27. Id. ↑
28. Id. ↑
29. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); 17 U.S.C. § 106(4) ↑
30. Id. ↑