We're not sure what type of person keeps tabs on years-old magazine covers, but they exist, and one of them has noted a striking similarity between Kate Hudson's new W image and a Bazaar cover from 1994.

We suppose this might be more scandalous if eyeliner placement and facial expressions could be patented. But they can't be. La di da.

[Source]

Aug 8, 2008 · posted by Cord Jefferson, MollyGood · Link · 12 Responses
Related Posts

• 08.14.08: Home Invasion to Become Reality Show (Comments: 0)
• 08.14.08: Dave Coulier On Alanis: 'We're Good' (Comments: 0)
• 08.14.08: A Question About Modern Relevance (Comments: 1)
• 08.14.08: A Size Two Is Not Fat, But There's Always Room For Improvement (Comments: 4)
• 08.14.08: America's Next Top Transgender Model? (Comments: 0)
Comments (12)

No. 1 sar says:

Bazaar did it about 15 times better. Work it, James St. James!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 9:14 am
No. 2 Lisa (#1) says:

This is where I turn into a nerd and say that the cover art isn't patentable - and even if it were, the patent would have run out already. I'll stop now before I launch into a lecture on copyright and trademark.

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 9:34 am
No. 3 deimos says:

now that's fierce!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 9:44 am
No. 4 Lisa (#1) says:

Re-reading what I wrote, it comes off not as intended. I was playing professor for MG in general, not trying to correct anything in the post. I blame this morning's weak coffee for making me weak. Ugh, see? Waaaahhh, bwaaaaah!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
No. 5 sar says:

If it makes you feel validated Lisa, I didn't knwo youc an't copyright mag covers, adn I thought it was interesting.

If that hasn't fixed it for ya, run yourself through this thing: http :// validator. w3. org /

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 11:02 am
No. 6 Lisa (#1) says:

Well, you can copyright covers, can't patent. Fuck, it is like a compulsion! Bad, Lisa, BAD!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 12:18 pm
No. 7 cerebratious says:

Now this doesn't in any way mean I like Kate Hudson, in fact I abhor her, but the W photograph is way better- Am I the only one who thinks this? I think I am.

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 12:19 pm
No. 8 Lisa (#1) says:

Well, you have to take into account the 14 years in between the shots. There have been major advances in the Makeup Sciences!

*shit, the Bazaar cover could fall within a patent window, I did my math incorrectly this morning. Forget anything I said about that. Clearly, this morning my inner idiot came out to play.

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm
No. 9 sar says:

JAZZ PAWS to your patent and copyright expertise, I love you for it!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm
No. 10 Ruby Jackson says:

Lisa, it happens. Maybe switch brands of coffee.

You are right that the cover can't be patented, but the image on the cover does have copyright protection. It's not that remarkable an image from a creative standpoint (either one), so it may be just a coincidence. But, if there was a direct link, that would be considered "comping".

Once, I got back a portfolio of my photographs with post-it notes that said "COPY" still stuck to the pages they liked! Now, that's illegal!

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 2:19 pm
No. 11 Luz says:

This is sad, but when I saw Kate Hudson's photo, the first thing I thought was that it looks just like the Bazaar cover. But the only reason I know that is because Kevyn Aucoin did her makeup and I have all his books.

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 2:42 pm
No. 12 stickynose says:

Well, Jesus fuck me! How many goddamn ways can you display a bitch's face on a magazine anyway? .

Posted: Aug 8, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Leave a Comment
Scroll Posts