Lego Copyright Lawsuit Over Queer Eye Jacket Moves to Trial

A federal judge has refused to let Lego off the hook. On Sept. 27, Judge Omar A. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied most of Lego's bid to throw out a copyright case over a custom leather jacket designed for Antoni Porowski of Netflix's Queer Eye, allowing the artist's infringement claims to head toward trial, according to The Fashion Law. The Lego copyright lawsuit is now five years old — and it just became a cautionary tale for every brand that puts real designers' work on screen.

The jacket was commissioned in 2018, when Porowski asked artist James Concannon to create a custom black leather jacket in what the artist describes as a "propaganda-infused" aesthetic: a peace sign on one lapel, a skull on the chest, and dripping "THYME IS ON MY SIDE" lettering. Porowski wore it on a Season 4 episode that aired in 2019. Two years later, Lego's Queer Eye – The Fab 5 Loft set shipped with a Porowski Minifigure wearing a strikingly similar jacket — down to the paint drips.

Concannon sued in 2021, alleging Lego recreated his artwork without authorization or payment. Now, with the court's ruling, his direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright claims — plus a Connecticut unfair-trade-practices claim — all survive. Only the trade dress claim fell, because the judge found Concannon could not show consumers would likely be confused into thinking he produced the Minifigure version.

Why Lego's two main defenses failed

Lego's argument rested on two classic copyright shields: implied license and fair use. The court rejected both. On implied license, the judge said the facts could not support the inference that Concannon intended for the jacket "to be copied and widely distributed through an implied, unlimited license," Bloomberg Law reported — a line that will echo through every brand's licensing department.

The fair-use rejection was just as firm. None of the four statutory fair-use factors favored Lego, the court found, and faithfully reproducing the artwork was not transformative simply because Lego applied its own signature aesthetic. The judge invoked Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the Supreme Court's recent landmark on transformative use, ruling that stamping "LEGO DNA" onto another artist's work does not justify the copying, according to The Fashion Law.

Lego also tried to lean on tattoo cases like Solid Oak Sketches v. 2K Games, where courts have allowed artists' tattoos to appear on athletes in video games. The court distinguished those sharply: unlike tattoo artists, Concannon had not indicated he intended his work to be incorporated into Porowski's likeness — and a removable jacket is not a body tattoo.

What this means for indie designers and creator culture

The strategic lesson, flagged by The Fashion Law, is one every collaboration-hungry brand should memorize: Lego had licensed Porowski's likeness, but that license did not cover third-party artwork embedded in it. Companies must separately clear rights in garments and accessories that appear in a celebrity partnership — a standard many streetwear collabs and brand campaigns have rarely followed in practice.

For Gen Z's design economy, that is the part that matters. The Lego copyright lawsuit is a reminder that custom, one-of-a-kind commissioned work — jackets, sneakers, stage costumes — is the currency of creator culture, and this ruling says it cannot be silently strip-mined through a celebrity-likeness deal. The message to indie artists is blunt: your contract with the client is not a contract with the brands that come after them.

The human detail that made the story explode online is worth recounting carefully. Concannon wrote on Instagram in 2021 that after learning Lego had reproduced his design, he had been promised boxes of the set for his son — then told on release day he could simply buy one, calling the situation, in his words, "intellectual property theft," as quoted by Out and Inc. Those accounts come from the complaint and the artist's posts, not from an on-the-record Lego statement.

It is also worth noting what the ruling is not. The judge did not find Lego liable; he found the claims strong enough to reach a jury. Lego's likeness license argument remains part of the fight, and trial schedules have not been set. But for designers watching from the sidelines, the direction is clear: a toy set is no longer a gray area. For more on the intersection of fashion and culture, browse the Aesthetics beat and this season's take on the undone cut.