Rick Owens

[Faust]

I am not blaming xeraphim, unless he was the one who took the photo and posted it on IG. Rick Owens' showroom rules clearly state that no photos are allowed.

[xeraphim]

rest assured i wasn't the source of the leak, just happened to chanced upon it on my IG feed a few days back. photo has since been deleted by the person; received a pm asking me to take it down saying it "could lead you to the court"

[TheDivinitus]

Confirm. It was promptly removed from IG account, and I'm sure that person got the memo.

[TriggerDiscipline]

Confirm. It was promptly removed from IG account, and I'm sure that person got the memo.

I'm not advocating anything but can someone explain to me what the problem is? is this a moral/ethical debacle or what?

just asking from a curious standpoint as to why this is a legal issue.

[Shucks]

afaik no actual NDAs are signed before showroom visits, so i would see it mainly as a policy-issue. piss off the RO showroom by breaking omertà and leaking collection photos and u won't be invited back.

[TriggerDiscipline]

afaik no actual NDAs are signed before showroom visits, so i would see it mainly as a policy-issue. piss off the RO showroom by breaking omertà and leaking collection photos and u won't be invited back.

yeah I understand where it's an issue of Rick Policy, just don't understand how there can be international/legal implications of the situation as others have described lol "rick took me to jail bro, im not getting out."

[Shucks]

there can be legal issues if the photo is the copyright of RO/RO employee, and then spread, or if a NDA has been signed and violated, or possibly collection info can be considered 'trade secrets' (until such time the collections are presented publicly) and this then a 'theft' or 'unlawful disclosure' of said secret, by an employee or similar.

[Faust]

I'm not advocating anything but can someone explain to me what the problem is? is this a moral/ethical debacle or what?

just asking from a curious standpoint as to why this is a legal issue.

The problem seems pretty damn obvious.

a) You will know the name of the collection before it's revealed at the show.

b) Zara is going to copy that shit in 1,2,3 and deliver it to stores in a few weeks.

[Shucks]

sure. but (i think) we are discussing more what the actual legal aspects would be of disclosing that type of information in this way.

[Faust]

I don't think that's what Trigger was referring to initially?

[xeraphim]

I'm not advocating anything but can someone explain to me what the problem is? is this a moral/ethical debacle or what?

just asking from a curious standpoint as to why this is a legal issue.

in addition to what Faust mentioned, the leak came from an intern working in the RO showroom so contracts such as NDAs come into play here.

[TriggerDiscipline]

in addition to what Faust mentioned, the leak came from an intern working in the RO showroom so contracts such as NDAs come into play here.

thank you Faust Shucks xeraphim

the story does change significantly if it's an intern, I just wasn't exactly sure what the context was, I mean I certainly am not going around taking pictures at the showrooms or previews, but I just wasn't sure of the exact implications of something coming out early due to the fact that the show photographs have been out for quite some time now.

I also thought these showroom photos came out after the fact, I mean we don't have to go deep into this subject It just seems like an interesting thing to discuss.

[mrbeuys]

... I just wasn't sure of the exact implications of something coming out early due to the fact that the show photographs have been out for quite some time now.

The show isn't until January 2015. That's the issue.

[TriggerDiscipline]

The show isn't until January 2015. That's the issue.

oh these were not faun...

thank you once again for the clarification

[Shucks]

oh these were not faun...
thank you once again for the clarification

that's why there was a different word on the label