Drake & 21 Savage Appear to Use Ugly Anna Wintour Tour Visual After Vogue Lawsuit

Drake and 21 Savage have recently been in the news for their creative use of a visual that was once used in a Vogue magazine cover. The two rappers appear to have repurposed the image for their own tour, sparking a conversation about the legality of their actions.

The visual in question is a portrait of Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine. The image was featured on the cover of the magazine in May of 2017 and has since been used by Drake and 21 Savage in promotional material for their joint tour. In response, Vogue has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the two rappers, claiming that their use of the image is a violation of copyright law.

The lawsuit is still pending, and the outcome remains to be seen. However, the case has sparked a debate about the legal implications of using someone else’s image without their permission. Many people have argued that Drake and 21 Savage have a right to use the image, as it is a public figure and has been widely circulated. Others have argued that Vogue owns the image and should be able to protect it from being used without their permission.

In the meantime, the image has become a source of controversy and debate. While the legal implications of the case are still being discussed, many people have taken to social media to express their opinions on the matter. Some have argued that Drake and 21 Savage are simply using the image as a form of artistic expression and should not be held liable for copyright infringement. Others have argued that Vogue should be able to protect its image from being used without its permission.

No matter the outcome, the case has sparked an important conversation about copyright law and its implications. It is important to remember that copyright law exists to protect the rights of creators and to ensure that their work is not used without their permission. It is also important to remember that artistic expression is a vital part of our society and should be protected. Only time will tell how this case will be resolved, but it is sure to have lasting implications for the future of copyright law.