by Chinazam Ikechi-Uko
Ferrari, Wembley, F1, Rolex, Hugo Boss, and Rimowa; these are all collaborations that designer and artist Olaolu Akeredolu-Ale, often referred to as Slawn, has secured in the third decade of the 21st century. So when it came to the announcement of Slawn X Kaws collaboration, the question was not Could Slawn have done this, but instead, it was Should Slawn have done this? And should you?
SO YOU DON’T KNOW WHO KAWS OR SLAWN IS…
Slawn is a British-based Nigerian artist known for his large-scale pop art canvases, graffiti, caricatures and murals. He is notably the youngest person to design the Britannia statuette for the annual BRIT Awards. While his work is renowned and admired by critics and famous personalities alike, his art style has taken on a controversial shadow, with many citing its similarities to the Golliwog.
A golliwog is a caricature doll that originated in the late 19th century, which typically depicts a Black character with jet-black skin, exaggerated red lips, frizzy hair, and bright clothing. The golliwog is recognised as a racist symbol because of its origins in demeaning caricatures tied to colonialism, slavery, and minstrel shows. However, as a Nigerian, Slawn is one degree separated from the history of the golliwog, and self-describes his art as childish, not to be taken too seriously. In an interview with The Face, he states, “I don’t even know why people want this shit … I wouldn’t buy this shit. I just have no interest in my art. I make it so I can fuck about.”
On the side of the ring is Brian Donnelly, professionally known as Kaws. Donnelly is an American artist. He’s best known for creating a distinct visual style that blends pop culture imagery with his own recurring characters, often featuring cartoonish figures with X’s for eyes.
With decades of age and experience between the two artists, Slawn is undoubtedly inspired by Kaws’ work, and he admits it. In an Instagram voice note, Slawn tells us, “Kaws is one of the greatest contemporary artists in the world. Having my name next to his, in any sort of capacity, is good for me.”
This lighthearted thought process played a huge factor in Slawn’s approach to his latest collaboration, which turned into an artist faux pas… he created a collection inspired by Kaws’ work.
THE CONTROVERSY:
On the 3rd of August 2025, Slawn took to Instagram to announce a collection drop, Slawn X Kaws. The caption reads, “SLAWN X KAWS, AN ODE TO ONE OF THE GREATEST, THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING @KAWS, AMEN.” But the first comment underneath, pinned by Slawn, reads, “I have nothing to do with this. This is misleading!” The comment, which has accumulated over 5,000 likes, was made by industry veteran Kaws.
This sparked a new topic: does inspiration blur the lines between homage and deception?
IS THIS A LEGAL PROBLEM?
There is an age-old debate about when inspiration can be classified as theft, with a recent example being the Desirée Iyama scandal. This was when an X user, formerly on Twitter, took to the platform to showcase a dress she had made. In the caption, she said that Desirée Iyama’s meraki dress had inspired her. She was not expecting a rebuttal from the designer, who highlighted that this wasn’t an inspiration but a theft.
This makes Kaws’ response to Slawn more favourable; however, there is a stark difference between these two cases. The Desirée Iyama dress was a direct replica of the meraki dress, and Slawn merged Kaws’ signature character with his personal style.
However, artistic signatures are often copyrighted, and in the industry, ligations are popular, and Kaws is familiar with this. So Slawn was taking a risk. But how ethical was this risk, and if you wanted to pay homage to your favourite artist, could you end up with a lawsuit as opposed to flowers a la Olivia Rodrigo?
Law graduate, Joshua Kolawole, 21, explains, “I’ll say this would be an infringement. ‘Cause this inspiration thing definitely isn’t covered by fair dealing, which is the blanket exception to copyright. I would say that is even the opposite of fair dealing, because fair dealing includes non-commercial research and private use, as outlined in Section 20 of the Copyright Act. An Instagram post could easily be regarded as an invitation to treat.”
Kolawole expresses that copyright laws do more than cover the artistic recreation of the pieces; they equally cover marketing, rights to make an adaptation of a work, and communicating the work to the public. Under section 10 of the Copyright Act.
Slawn does violate this as he distributed KawSlawn T-shirts. However, Slawn stated, in an Instagram story, that the shirts were distributed, not sold, and everyone knew it was an unofficial collaboration. However, copyright law does extend to that, so major advice would be: do not try this at home. But why did Slawn risk a lawsuit to make a homage?
WHAT SLAWN SAID:
It is a Wednesday, and Slawn sends a voice note setting the record straight, “Brian (Kaws) wasn’t aware of the post before the Instagram post. I did that purely on my own understanding.” He adores Kaws and goes on to say, “He is a great guy, he has done and accomplished a lot of great things. I ain’t got beef with him.”
His inspiration behind the collaboration is as direct as the NIKE catchphrase, a brand with which he has previously partnered. The bedrock idea behind this risk? None, he just did it. “I took the risk because I am a fucking dumb guy. I wasn’t thinking, and I don’t plan on thinking in the future.”
His tone remains jovial as he expresses hope that he doesn’t turn into a lawsuit. He is no stranger to risks, and the legality of this was not on his mind. “I was just trying to show people that I could make sculptures and pay homage to someone who is good.”
On the current situation, Slawn says there’s no need for a mutual understanding as his feelings towards Kaws haven’t changed, and he knows when to take an L.
The discourse surrounding Slawn’s tribute collection to Kaws is another example of the intricate balance between inspiration and artistic ownership in the creative world. While Slawn’s admiration for Kaws is evident, the blurred lines between homage and imitation raise significant ethical and legal issues. Nevertheless, the controversy, while innocent, revealed a large audience eager for a collaboration between the two contemporary artists. Fingers crossed we eventually get one!
