The FADER asked what copying an aesthetic means in the internet age and landed on the only answer the current system allows: assume coincidence. That is not a verdict. It is what a market sounds like when nothing in it has a title, a price, or a claim.
In January, The FADER's Tobias Hess wrote up a small internet fight and, without quite meaning to, described the entire problem this series exists to solve.1
The fight: New York artist Alexandra Drewchin, who records as Eartheater, posted an Instagram carousel that appeared to show other artists lifting her work. Her 2020 album cover for Phoenix: Flames Are Dew Upon My Skin — a blaze of sparklers shooting out from behind her — set beside a recent image of Robyn with a blurred rear and the same sparks, and a similar concept from LSDXOXO on the cover of King Kong. Katy Perry and Megan Thee Stallion were implicated too.2
The reaction was, in The FADER's word, unsparing. Drewchin was accused of “falsely claiming ownership over broad visual concepts like utilizing sparklers and the use of text on garments.” She deleted the post.2 Hess then walks through the pattern: Arca and Sevdaliza over exo-skeletons in 2025; Marina and Charli xcx over a fragrance campaign in 2016; the K-pop recreation of YSEULT's video that was “overwhelming and indisputable” and yet demonstrated “just how high the bar is for proving creative theft.”3 His conclusion is the honest one available to him: “For the murkier cases, it might be best to assume mere coincidence. Everyone will sleep better.”1
Read that carefully. A working artist believed her creative property had been taken. She assembled evidence. She published it in the only venue open to her. And the venue's response was to question her standing, so she withdrew the claim. Nothing was adjudicated. Nothing was priced. Nothing was recorded. The public record of the dispute is now a deleted post and a magazine piece that recommends everyone stop asking.
That is not a story about whether aesthetics can be owned. It is a story about what happens to any property claim filed in a market with no registry. The claim fails — not on the merits, because the merits were never examined, but because there was nowhere to file it.
Read The FADER's own examples as a case log. Each one has an originator, a date of first demonstration, a later look-alike, and a public accusation. None of them has a record, a price, or a remedy.
Now put the one case the article treats as clear beside the ones it treats as murky. Hess draws the line at Marvin Gaye's estate against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, where “questions can usually be clearly answered by looking at sheet music and songwriting processes.”4 He is right, and the reason is worth naming precisely. Sheet music is not more original than a cover concept. It is more recorded. A composition has a registration, a date, a rate card and a courtroom. A mood board has a post date and a comment section. The difference in outcomes is not a difference in creativity. It is a difference in infrastructure.
Here is the sentence this note exists to put on the record: when cultural property has a title, a price, and an enforceable claim, it stops being content and becomes an asset.
Everything in The FADER piece follows from the absence of those three things. Hess describes the internet as “the loud lunch room” — everyone on the same platforms, fed the same images, unable to prove who saw what.1 True. But a lunch room is exactly where you would expect ownership to be impossible, because nobody there is keeping a ledger. The problem is not that we are all looking at the same references. It is that none of the references carry a record of who demonstrated them first, what they are worth, and what it costs to use them.
Hess also makes an observation that should stop every label, manager and creative director in their tracks. Aesthetics, he writes, is “everything in culture today.” The visual presentation of a release now competes not with other records but with every piece of content on the internet, and “one could argue that the instantly recognizable aesthetic and perfectly executed mass marketing of Charli xcx's brat contributed just as much to the album's success as its music.”5
Hold those two facts together. The component of a release that now carries the most commercial weight — the look, the concept, the campaign — is the component with the least protection. The song has a title layer. The mood board, which The FADER says may be worth as much as the song, has none. That is not a cultural quirk. It is an asset mismatch, and it is the single largest unpriced position in the creative economy.
| Layer | The song (composition) | The mood board (aesthetic) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Copyright registration; a named author of record | None. An Instagram post date and whoever the algorithm shows first | VACANT |
| Date of record | Registration and release dates, fixed and searchable | Contested every time. “How would one go to prove that?” | VACANT |
| Price | Mechanical, sync and performance rates; a market for catalog | None. The only number is the accuser's follower count | VACANT |
| Venue | Federal court; an evidence standard; expert testimony on sheet music | The comment section; a standard of “who do you think you are” | VACANT |
| Remedy | Damages, injunctions, a corrected credit | A deleted post, and a recommendation to assume coincidence | VACANT |
Swipe to see the full table →
The song column describes the general U.S. copyright regime for musical compositions. The mood board column is a MADE CX assessment drawn from the disputes The FADER reports. Quoted phrases are The FADER's.
This is why the accusations “blow up in the face of the accuser,” as Hess puts it, reading “as anxious paranoia about their own standing in the wider cultural hierarchy.”1 Of course they do. A claim without a title is a claim about standing, because standing is all the claimant has to offer as evidence. Give the same artist a registered, dated, appraised record of first demonstration and the conversation changes from who do you think you are to here is the entry, here is the rate.
Coincidence is not a finding. It is the default verdict of a market that never wrote anything down.
Founder's Note No. 11Ask what Drewchin actually had in her hands in January. By the article's own description: an original visual concept, dated 2020, publicly attributable to her, demonstrably influential enough that four larger artists arrived at something similar within five years. In any other industry that is a description of an appreciating asset. In this one it was a description of content — something that happened online, that anyone could build on, that she could not even complain about without losing the argument.
The difference is entirely in the paperwork. A creative right that has a holder of record, a defensible appraisal and a license schedule is not a mood board. It is a line item. It can be licensed to the next artist who wants the sparklers, pledged against an advance, contributed to a catalog, valued in an estate, and enforced when someone takes it without asking. Creative rights can now sit on a balance sheet as real collateral — that is the whole premise of Culture as Collateral, and the Eartheater case is the cleanest illustration of it we have been handed all year.6
Notice what does not change between the two columns: the art. Nobody is asked to make less, share less, or be less influenced. The sparklers still go in the photo. What changes is that the act of being influenced acquires a price and a permission path, so that “inspired by” becomes a transaction instead of an accusation. The next artist who wants the concept licenses it, credits it, and moves on. The originator gets paid. And the argument over standing never happens, because standing is no longer the evidence — the record is.
This is what we mean by codify and monetize what we already own. The ownership is not in question; Drewchin made the thing, on a date, and the world can see it. What is missing is the codification — the entry that turns a fact everyone knows into a right anyone can transact. Monetization follows codification. It cannot precede it.
The Cultural Property Rights Standard™ was built for the failure mode The FADER describes: a cultural asset with a clear originator, a dated first demonstration, real downstream value, and no title layer in between. Here is what the standard does to the mood board — in the order it has to happen.
The FADER's bar for proving creative theft is high because proof is the one thing nobody in the system is paid to record. CPRS™ makes the record first, so the claim is never a question of who you think you are.
MADE CX will open BCID registration to visual concepts, campaigns and creative-direction systems with a documented first demonstration, priced by CPRS™ appraisal and licensed under the Cultural Use License. Artists, creative directors and estates holding a look the internet has already borrowed are invited to register it before the next carousel.
The FADER's closing advice — assume coincidence, everyone will sleep better — is offered kindly, and for the world as it is currently built, it is probably correct. There is no point in an artist filing a claim in a market that has no place to file it. She will lose, and she will lose on standing, and she will delete the post.
But that advice describes a market failure, not a cultural truth. Coincidence is the verdict a system reaches when it has decided not to keep records. Copyright did not settle the Gaye case because songs are more original than images; it settled it because someone had written the song down, dated it, and priced it long before anyone argued about it. The mood board can be written down too. It simply never has been.
If you make culture — a cover, a campaign, a silhouette, a color that a whole summer borrowed — understand that the difference between what you make being content and what you make being an asset is not talent, and it is not reach. It is a title, a price, and a claim. Two of those are paperwork. The third only exists because of the first two. Codify what you already own. Then the question of who copied whom stops being a fight about standing and becomes what it should have been all along: an invoice.
Yours in the interest of the race,
Artists, creative directors and estates: register the aesthetic, price it, and publish the terms — before the next accusation has to be a deleted post. Each Founder's Note lands in your inbox first.
Reported facts are cited to their source. Where a statement is a MADE CX assessment rather than a reported fact, it is labeled as such.
MADE CX publishes editorial research and commentary on cultural property and commerce. Nothing on this site is an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security or interest, and nothing here is investment, legal, accounting, or tax advice.
Designations shown with a dollar sign — for example $CULTURE — are editorial identifiers used to name the subject of an analysis. They are not securities, digital assets, tokens, funds, or tradeable instruments of any kind, and no such instrument is offered or available.
Names, marks, and images of individuals, estates, and organizations appear for purposes of news reporting, commentary, and analysis. Their appearance does not imply affiliation with, sponsorship by, or endorsement of MADE CX.
© 2026 MADE CX. MADE CX, CPRS, and Culture Exchange Standard are trademarks of MADE CX. All other marks belong to their respective owners. Corrections and rights inquiries: hi@madecx.info.