Supreme responds to TTY statement by Morrissey

Regarding Supreme/Morrissey - Supreme / Facebook

In July of 2015 Supreme approached Morrissey to participate in one of it's poster and T-Shirt campaigns. The scope of the project was explained in full detail to Morrissey, including the intended look, the setting, the photographer, as well as the items that would be produced: a T-Shirt and a poster. An agreement was entered which named the photographer as Terry Richardson, who has shot many of Supreme's campaigns, and whom Morrissey has worked with before. Images of past campaigns were sent to Morrissey for reference so that the intended result was clear. Morrissey required a substantial fee for his participation in this project which Supreme paid up front and in full. The photo shoot lasted two hours and Morrissey was free to do, and pose as he wished. The agreement prohibits Morrissey from "unreasonably" withholding approval of the use of photographs taken at the photo shoot.

After offering Morrissey several options of images from the shoot, Morrissey rejected them all with no explanation. Instead, Morrissey insisted on using a photo that he had taken of himself wearing a Supreme T-shirt for the campaign. This image was later made public on Instagram by his nephew.

Unable to use this image Supreme repeatedly offered Morrissey three very reasonable options as a remedy to the impasse: 1) To do an entire re-shoot at Supreme's sole expense, 2) To select one of the many options from the shoot with Terry Richardson that were offered to Morrissey, 3) To return the money that was paid to Morrissey by Supreme.

Morrissey repeatedly ignored all three options with no reason given as to why. He then proceeded to assert a sudden and ridiculous claim that because Supreme had used the White Castle logo on a group of products in the past, and because he is a known vegetarian, that the agreement was supposedly terminated.

In light of this ploy, Supreme once again requested the return of the money it had paid to Morrissey so that both parties could walk away from the project. However, he refused.

After many attempts to solve this problem, and left with no other viable options, Supreme proceeded to publish these images as per it's agreement with Morrissey.


Media:



Related item:


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brilliant, you say.
Yes if you blow every chance you have. This is no more than a low rent scam.
How did it come to this?

Exposure to the young kids and new fans. I think he is tired of us old folks at the gigs and what some hot youthful fans. I do think our Mozza is a tad bored and might welcome some caos thought too. Keep the money though not sure why anyone would return it.
 
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I am saying, from an advertising perspective, there are no mistakes. The public "dispute" is planned for mass exposure. Morrissey enjoys purposely playing the villain. People don't get it and I'm surprised that they don't. Morrissey has been an expert at getting people's attention in a unique way since 1984. He's a genius. Everyone wins here. Supreme gets exposure, Morrissey gets exposure. Supreme gets paid, Morrissey gets paid and laugh at us with our "outrage" all the way to the bank. Bottom line, I wouldn't mind getting a Supreme shirt, I doubt I will, but somebody will and that's the point. Everyone wins and Morrissey's credibility is fully intact AS ALWAYS. By the way, been listening to Ringleaders, Years of Refusal and World Peace and I have to say, these are great f***ing albums. I mean, amazing. I am really impressed.

At this point I'd believe just about anything, a buzz has been created ...

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/feb/15/morrissey-photoshoot-dispute-supreme-white-castle
http://pitchfork.com/news/63524-mor...s-swiftly-distances-himself-from-the-company/

... and there's more ... so perhaps there's method to the madness?

Methinks way more attention than otherwise would have been given.
 
In his statement he is offering to return the money. An offer needs to be accepted.

No. They asked for the money back as option 3, but didn't hear from him. He's saying he offered to return the money. All he would have had to do if he is telling the truth is... returned the money. He could have sent them a check that they would have to sign for. He could have had a lawyer present the check.

It seems to me that what really happened is that they won't use Sam's photo, probably because they already have a contract with Terry Richardson, and they don't want to have to negotiate a fee with Sam. As horrible of a person as Terry Richardson appears to be, he is a professional and they know once the contract is signed there are not going to be any headaches. Or maybe the contract says that he is the exclusive photographer for this series. They don't want to break a contract with him, and they don't want the next person in the series to have their cousin take the picture, and turn the whole thing they have already spent time and money setting up into a situation where they have ot individually negotiate photographers with every new endorser.
 
He should have returned the dosh straight away if he wasn't happy. I don't see how it would make sense to return it at this stage, though.

At this point it's the same thing as when he tells people not to buy the latest dvd. The webstore is closed until February 25th at which time I will bet the shirt will be marked "sold out." The posters are on ebay for $150.
 
BtheBB, if you think you don't like Moz you're wrong. You're gonna miss him when he's gone.

#Goegan

Oh right ok thanks for that I'm always willing to take on board other people's views on my own views but it I'll be there making sure the nails are in his coffin don't you worry about it pal, now in the meantime put your ear plugs in, select world peace on repeat and get to work ! Those burgers won't flip themselves you know.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
No. They asked for the money back as option 3, but didn't hear from him. He's saying he offered to return the money. All he would have had to do if he is telling the truth is... returned the money. He could have sent them a check that they would have to sign for. He could have had a lawyer present the check.

It seems to me that what really happened is that they won't use Sam's photo, probably because they already have a contract with Terry Richardson, and they don't want to have to negotiate a fee with Sam. As horrible of a person as Terry Richardson appears to be, he is a professional and they know once the contract is signed there are not going to be any headaches. Or maybe the contract says that he is the exclusive photographer for this series. They don't want to break a contract with him, and they don't want the next person in the series to have their cousin take the picture, and turn the whole thing they have already spent time and money setting up into a situation where they have ot individually negotiate photographers with every new endorser.

The futures so bright I gotta wear shades kid !

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
Loving Supreme's new range of unisex pants
View attachment 35027

Supreme needs to add this to their Morrissey-themed undies line - would go over great with all those gay skaters!

o-TOWIE-570.jpg
 
Supreme needs to add this to their Morrissey-themed undies line - would go over great with all those gay skaters!

o-TOWIE-570.jpg

Decent-looking...though the brows are just a smidge too on point, the chest zit looks like a third nipple, and why is he so exuberantly framing his non-existent package?!? Oh that's right... Think Moz would really dig this guy - he sorta resembles Damon but with more hair (quiff even). Nice and fem - just look how he's carrying those fruity drinks! And why is that camera lens up his rear cleavage? Is he a Eurotrash reality celeb or something? Doesn't seem to bother him a bit though - anything for attention, right?!?
 
Well,don't know about that,he's never lied to me. Maybe your 'experiences' are different from mine. The company says they 'paid up front in full' and 'he refused' maybe they're lying. That's not my point.

Anyhow,my post was simply that... they used a photo he didn't want used. And then why(has it/doesn't have it? who cares) then why should he return the fee? Which is what he basically says(to my understanding) in the new tty statement.

Except that there is no money to return if you believe Morrissey. He apparently did it for free. Right? He says there is no money to return. Now I know he said earlier that the money would be returned, something you referred to, but that can't be true because there is no money. That's what he's saying now. All of the things he says are true even if what he says today is the opposite of what he said yesterday.

Or perhaps if we look at this logically and don't play games with the order of events, they said they would cancel the campaign if he gave back the money, but he didn't so they went ahead with it. NOW there is no reason to give back the money, because they went ahead with it. But AGAIN, there is no money to give back.
 
Forever. Until he gave the word,until they bowed to his wishes to use the photo he wanted(not Terry's) to use instead. Then after he found out about the White C backing(?) He decided it was all not such a good idea.

What I don't understand is that people think that this is all something within some time frame something that's easy to sort out. Do people really think he woke up every day thinking about this photo and money and etc? I'm sure there are other things on his mind. I'm sure it wasn't first on the pile of his 'to do' list.

So he doesn't take care of business? He sure did act immediately trying to #ProfitFromParis. I guess I understand. Getting paid is a priority and returning the money is not.
 
Well,don't know about that,he's never lied to me. Maybe your 'experiences' are different from mine. The company says they 'paid up front in full' and 'he refused' maybe they're lying. That's not my point.

Anyhow,my post was simply that... they used a photo he didn't want used. And then why(has it/doesn't have it? who cares) then why should he return the fee? Which is what he basically says(to my understanding) in the new tty statement.

... he's never lied to you? Who are you anyway KS? His laundress?
 
Except that there is no money to return if you believe Morrissey. He apparently did it for free. Right? He says there is no money to return. Now I know he said earlier that the money would be returned, something you referred to, but that can't be true because there is no money. That's what he's saying now. All of the things he says are true even if what he says today is the opposite of what he said yesterday.

Or perhaps if we look at this logically and don't play games with the order of events, they said they would cancel the campaign if he gave back the money, but he didn't so they went ahead with it. NOW there is no reason to give back the money, because they went ahead with it. But AGAIN, there is no money to give back.

alas his ass ate it all up.....
 
Decent-looking...though the brows are just a smidge too on point, the chest zit looks like a third nipple, and why is he so exuberantly framing his non-existent package?!? Oh that's right... Think Moz would really dig this guy - he sorta resembles Damon but with more hair (quiff even). Nice and fem - just look how he's carrying those fruity drinks! And why is that camera lens up his rear cleavage? Is he a Eurotrash reality celeb or something? Doesn't seem to bother him a bit though - anything for attention, right?!?

I spy a nip piercing on the right, sailor - SUPERHAAWT, kinky azzzz......bet he's got his dinkydong Prince Alberted!
 
'because they went ahead with it. But AGAIN, there is no money to give back.' yes I already agreed..that his last two statements were confusing...but I don't see why anyone should jump up and call him a liar.

'they said they would cancel the campaign if he gave back the money, but he didn't so they went ahead with it.'


I would think it a bit dangerous for a company to go through with anything (regardless of contracts) if a lawyer has contacted you to not go ahead. This also looks like Supreme trolling off of M not kowtowing to their ideas.

Why are you so vehemently invested in this matter? Who the hell cares?
 
Names? Are you thinking of Madonna or U2? Say what you will about Madonna, it took courage to go to Paris and perform in the street, and I don't much care for U2 but I have to give them credit for showing solidarity with other rock musicians and with western culture in general.

#ProfitFromParis I believe was a phrase that either "Brummie Boy" or "Benny The British Butcher" coined. There is a thread or two in this forum that explains it in depth. No need to rehash here. We've got t-shirts to sell!

Has anyone made a bootleg version of Sam's version? Now that I would buy.


So showing solidarity with western culture is a risky thing these days? Very odd statement, "Calamine Lotion". Were they supposed to put on burkas like Gisele Bündchen and go to a mosque instead? They're fricking Irish and have not forgotten that. Why would they ever want to, for that matter?
 
What does "USA" have to do with U2 or Paris? Yes, it takes courage to perform in an area where at least 130 people were killed not long before. Morrissey wanted to show tribute but I haven't seen him play any show in Paris lately. He's moved on to the important things.
 
'Are you thinking of Madonna or U2?' they're all the same.

'Madonna, it took courage to go to Paris and perform in the street' :lbf: Wait ,what !? I thought she was busking?!
'courage' ? pleeeease.

'western culture' :lbf: u$a !u$a! u$a! ... jesus.:rolleyes:

' believe was a phrase' ... you would.

'coined.' ...only in Solo... sense to the senseless. Where such terms and accusations leave me in the dark.

Morrissey certainly has profited from "western culture", so why are you thumbing your nose at it, girl? Aren't you American, Patti? And yes, Madonna and U2 are identical - what?? I thought Moz was friends with U2? Didn't they ask him to open for them at Glastonbury and remember Pope Bono was in the Moz documentary. Why the hate?
 
What does "USA" have to do with U2 or Paris? Yes, it takes courage to perform in an area where at least 130 people were killed not long before. Morrissey wanted to show tribute but I haven't seen him play any show in Paris lately. He's moved on to the important things.

such ass, insider?
 
Back
Top Bottom