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:
He looks great in the photo! It does feel like a publicity stunt. I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't read the news about it!
 
What's all the fuss ?
We all know Steven is a toxic contaminated veggie/vegan, we only need look back in time to make sense of it all.
Let me explain ! Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin.

Caught with Dubliner Kerrygold cheese on the rider (his favourite apparently)
So called meat free performances yet cheese panini's on the menu
Staples centre performance again big deal made yet again that he'd closed down the meat fair.
Being photographed and associated with the 5* Hotel group Pestana who pride themselves in leather/fur luxurious trimmings and lashings of meat fit for Royalty.
Glastonbury statement not being animal friendly yet Steve performed at it more than once.
Madison Square Garden performance (yep another one) so called meat free yet luxurious meat and sushi served to the wealthy in corporate boxes.
Meat festival performances in the States last tour.
Dates being planned as we speak in Dog and cat eating countries.

Get over it people ! [rolleyes] it's just Steve ! Well !!!!!! er being Steve ! I don't care, I don't care, I don't care.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
The over analysis is very amusing, but...
So his genius, machiavellian 'plan' is to provoke some faux 'outrage' on here and get a couple of minor mentions here and there?
I think if the underlying agenda is publicity, he could manage better ways to generate far greater 'controversy'.
He had a huge public platform on Larry King - why not utilise that type of opportunity?
So he calculates that a paragraph on TTY will set off a chain of events that promote him in a 'clever' way painting him the villain and victim at the same time - to what end!? Promote what exactly? There is no 'mass' exposure generated by this storm in a teacup.
If he's doing what people assert here, then he's not doing so very well.
Regards,
FWD
 
Last edited:
Psst ! Sammy lad !
It's me Benny
I dare yer to photoshop some logos on Uncle's t shirt !
White Castle
KFC
McDonalds
BurgerKing
4Guys
Benny

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
They own the photos end of story.

People should give more of a f*** that Moz is happy to have his photo taken by a known abuser and rapist.
 
They own the photos end of story.

People should give more of a f*** that Moz is happy to have his photo taken by a known abuser and rapist.

Terrys victims are women and human. What does Morrissey care? I know i sound harsh but.....
 
You ever get a sense of deja vu about the way everything connected with Morrissey goes down? So, I'm guessing the band will all be wearing 'f*** SUPREME' T shirts at the next gig?


People should give more of a f*** that Moz is happy to have his photo taken by a known abuser and rapist.

'Alleged' is the word you are looking for. The guy has never been convicted of anything, and there is this little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Or would you be OK if I decided to make up a story about you, and everyone just decided that it must be true, because it's on the internet? If people think he has sexually abused them - take it to the police, take it to court, or shut the f*** up.
 
What I find interesting is this: "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 ..."


I wonder *why* Supreme were unable to use the photo Moz supplied? Presumably that photo was by Lil' Sammy. Did Moz turn around and say "You can use this one instead - but only if you pay my nephew $20,000", or something like that?

The other thing is - why did Morrissey even accept this deal in the first place, without researching the company? As well as the hamburger links, these guys sell animal skin products, as he could have found it by 10 seconds Googling. Did he always intend to 'take the money and run', or is he just a bit thick?
 
What's all the fuss ?
We all know Steven is a toxic contaminated veggie/vegan, we only need look back in time to make sense of it all.
Let me explain ! Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin.

Caught with Dubliner Kerrygold cheese on the rider (his favourite apparently)
So called meat free performances yet cheese panini's on the menu
Staples centre performance again big deal made yet again that he'd closed down the meat fair.
Being photographed and associated with the 5* Hotel group Pestana who pride themselves in leather/fur luxurious trimmings and lashings of meat fit for Royalty.
Glastonbury statement not being animal friendly yet Steve performed at it more than once.
Madison Square Garden performance (yep another one) so called meat free yet luxurious meat and sushi served to the wealthy in corporate boxes.
Meat festival performances in the States last tour.
Dates being planned as we speak in Dog and cat eating countries.

Get over it people ! [rolleyes] it's just Steve ! Well !!!!!! er being Steve ! I don't care, I don't care, I don't care.

Benny-the-British-Butcher

But you do care, that's the problem. You post this shit in virtually every thread on here.
 
You ever get a sense of deja vu about the way everything connected with Morrissey goes down? So, I'm guessing the band will all be wearing 'f*** SUPREME' T shirts at the next gig?




'Alleged' is the word you are looking for. The guy has never been convicted of anything, and there is this little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Or would you be OK if I decided to make up a story about you, and everyone just decided that it must be true, because it's on the internet? If people think he has sexually abused them - take it to the police, take it to court, or shut the f*** up.

Okay Terry, calm down... It will all come down on you one day.
 
What I find interesting is this: "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 ..."


I wonder *why* Supreme were unable to use the photo Moz supplied? Presumably that photo was by Lil' Sammy. Did Moz turn around and say "You can use this one instead - but only if you pay my nephew $20,000", or something like that?

The other thing is - why did Morrissey even accept this deal in the first place, without researching the company? As well as the hamburger links, these guys sell animal skin products, as he could have found it by 10 seconds Googling. Did he always intend to 'take the money and run', or is he just a bit thick?

I think he just focuses on other things and doesn't always have the best lawyers but km nltfaulting am artist for making business mistake that he apologized. I don't think it a stunt as I don't think he support white castle under any means
 
You ever get a sense of deja vu about the way everything connected with Morrissey goes down? So, I'm guessing the band will all be wearing 'f*** SUPREME' T shirts at the next gig?




'Alleged' is the word you are looking for. The guy has never been convicted of anything, and there is this little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Or would you be OK if I decided to make up a story about you, and everyone just decided that it must be true, because it's on the internet? If people think he has sexually abused them - take it to the police, take it to court, or shut the f*** up.

The phrase is "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" No one is innocent until they've been proven to be innocent.
 
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.

"Exposure" for what, exactly? "Credibility fully in tact"? Sure, he's always going to be the former frontman of the Smiths, and he's had an incredible solo career up until Sam bought or stole photoshop. But if his goal is securing a major record deal to release new music, this theory of him doing it for "mass exposure" isn't going to make people want to sign him.
 
Everyone wins and Morrissey's credibility is fully intact AS ALWAYS.

I don't have it in for Morrissey, I honestly don't. But, to the non-sycophant, this latest episode makes him look like a sell-out, a thief and a liar all in one go. He badly needs to just do something - anything - without turning it into a mess.
 
It seems Supreme also think Sam Esty Rayner's photography leaves something to be desired (I do like his shot of Morrissey in a Supreme shirt with his arms out, but generally he has no discernible style and his "music video" was awful). Having thought about this some more, it's ridiculous that Morrissey is trying to force his preferred photographer on Supreme, and alas I think it has more to do with Sam Esty Rayner than Richardson's lecherous nature. Sad that his nephew has very quickly become a bizarre albatross.
 
Anything morrissey touches turns into a legal fight or he ends up in a feud with them. It's hard to take his side anymore when there's a pattern here, and what is the common element.
 
I don't have it in for Morrissey, I honestly don't. But, to the non-sycophant, this latest episode makes him look like a sell-out, a thief and a liar all in one go. He badly needs to just do something - anything - without turning it into a mess.

Morrissey is the only person I know who could be shipwrecked on a deserted island, and within a couple of weeks all on his own he'd still manage to get into an argument with someone else.
 
Anything morrissey touches turns into a legal fight or he ends up in a feud with them. It's hard to take his side anymore when there's a pattern here, and what is the common element.

Well he did sAy he made a mistake so I don't think he's trying get anyone on his but rather just said I'm sorry and tha he might not be able to fix it seems mature to me
 
I don't have it in for Morrissey, I honestly don't. But, to the non-sycophant, this latest episode makes him look like a sell-out, a thief and a liar all in one go. He badly needs to just do something - anything - without turning it into a mess.

I think to the non-sycophant it looks a lot more like a non-story that will be of little interest to anybody but the parishioners of this site.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom