The Reject Shop faces a legal threat from a UK artist over a flamingo egg cup. Does it have a leg to stand on? | Consumer affairs

British artist Hannah Turner was shocked when the image of a ceramic flamingo-shaped ovary appeared on her screen.

He studied her green eyes, the pattern of her feathers, her slender pink legs, and her general shape. He felt recognized.

The item he saw was selling for A$5 at a discount variety chain 15,000km away from his studio in south-west England; Here he first created his own flamingo ceramic egg cup, which sold for $62.

Until that moment, Turner had no idea that Australian retailer The Reject Shop was selling such a product as part of its Jungle Animal Egg Cup Assorted range. Shock gave way to anger before she wrote a letter to the retailer accusing him of selling her something that copied her design.

“It’s actually capitalism versus the crafts,” Turner told Guardian Australia.

“If you want good designers to design things, you need to support them… and understand why it costs a little more.”

‘Small artists have no budget’

Turner said other ceramic artists have come across examples where large retailers sell knockoffs of their products, and she wants consumers to understand how this affects small businesses.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Last week, a customer brought up her ovaries with The Reject Shop after reporting seeing a similar product at stores known for cheap household goods, cleaning products and craft supplies.

The company reported sales of $471.7 million and gross profit of $196.3 million in the second half of 2024.

In his email, seen by the Guardian, Turner asked the company to “please remove and destroy all these goods and show us evidence and also please provide us with details of who you purchased them from so we can take legal action”.

In response, The Reject Shop told Turner that his email “does not identify any legal rights you may have in Australia to justify claims”.

However, the company also said it would not import any more ovaries “as a gesture of good faith and without accepting any liability.”

“TRS currently has approximately 1,350 Flamingo Products remaining and estimates these will be sold by the end of January 2026,” The Reject Shop said in an email to Turner, which was also seen by the Guardian.

“We believe this will solve the problem.”

Turner, who is based in Bradford, Avon, said he designs all of his products. Prototypes were created in his studio and the products were then produced in small batches by a company in Sri Lanka.

He said he was seeking financial compensation from The Reject Shop but was unsure about taking legal action against the company.

“This really pisses me off because smaller artists don’t have the budget to pursue these labels,” he said.

A Reject Shop spokesperson said ensuring product compatibility was a priority.

“We continually review our product offering and sales practices while also taking our stakeholders’ feedback into account,” they said.

“After reviewing Ms. Turner’s request, as a gesture of good faith and acknowledging her concerns, we have committed not to re-order the product.”

copyright infringement

In Australia, original creative works are automatically protected by copyright law applicable to UK artists; because both countries have signed the international Berne Convention on copyright protection.

An artist can claim copyright infringement in Australia as long as a “substantial portion” of the original work has been used without permission and without a relevant defence. The plaintiff must also identify the person who actually copied his work.

But making a claim can be “difficult” because the “substantial part” threshold is subjective and not defined by law, according to Dr Louise Buckingham, chief executive of the Arts Law Centre.

He said the center receives inquiries daily from artists concerned about copyright infringement, many of which involve cases of major retailers imitating their designs.

“It’s really hard to take action because it’s expensive and time-consuming,” Buckingham said.

Prof., an intellectual property expert at the University of Melbourne’s law school. Andrew Christie said Turner could claim copyright infringement over the images printed on the ovaries if he could prove he was the creator.

But experts say AI’s ability to find designs on the internet makes it harder for artists to preserve their original work.

Generally speaking, senior lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney’s law school, Dr. Sarah Hook said AI could be used to identify things that can be easily reproduced.

“But just because something was made by AI does not relieve them of any copyright liability,” Hook said.

Dr Daniela Simone, of Macquarie University’s law school, said although “there appears to be a close resemblance” between Turner’s ovary and the ovary sold by The Reject Shop, it was “by no means a definitive case”.

“What makes this really difficult is that ideas are not copyrighted, they are just expressions of ideas,” he said.

“There are many ways to represent a flamingo.”