Artist EXPOSES The MET Museum!! | They stole her art!

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:02]MetGala is always one of those things where I'm like, "Oh, I can't be bothered for this to happen again." The MetGala, the Oscars, you know, there's those things where every brand just talks about it for weeks and weeks and weeks.

[00:00:12]Well, here I am a few weeks after it's finished. No, like a month after it's been on now, there's some interesting things about it, right? If you're into like fashion, beauty, there's some really great things to see. There is always some kind of drama around it.

[00:00:26]Somebody wasn't dressed well enough. The men weren't dressed too well to the theme. What was on one this year? That guy's makeup was [ __ ] You know, there's always some kind of drama, some kind of opinions happening. Let me introduce you to Anushka Sams. She is over on Tik Tok and she is an artist. Her description in her Tik Tok bio says, "Try not to get exploited by big institutions and hopefully helping others avoid it, too."

[00:00:48]Let's take a look at what she means.

[00:00:50]>> This is the original design.

[00:00:52]This is something like a counterfeit.

[00:00:54]The Met's displaying something like a counterfeit of my work for the >> It says on screen here, the Met has sustained a work that looks a lot like mine.

[00:01:02]>> Metal opening exhibition and they eradicated my credit and paid someone else for it. They collect it for their permanent exhibition. It's currently on display now and it's also in the exhibition publication too. And I found out that the Met had done this because I was tagged in a post on Instagram by another organization that was at the opening of the show who recognized my work thinking that they were congratulating me on my achievement.

[00:01:22]Oh, so I mean her work is that recognizable that another person whatever tagged was like congratulations on your work being shown at the MetGala.

[00:01:33]That's crazy.

[00:01:35]>> But my name is nowhere to be seen as a co-c collaborator even though it's also my design.

[00:01:40]>> I'm Aneska. I'm an emerging artist based in London, the UK. And I never thought I'd be talking in a real in a million years. And I make handwoven tapestries and lots of sculptures. Important note for this story, a lot of them include human hair because I explore how materials such as hair hold knowledge in their very form. And ironically, mimicry is a big theme within my practice. In 2023, I was awarded a studio residency at the Alexander McQueen program called Sarah Foundation. It is a year-long program that supports emerging artists and designers and more on them later.

[00:02:10]>> This was where I met an >> so she's doing incredibly well and and you know her work is recognizable fashion designer. They asked me to hand weave textiles for several pieces of their 2023 autumn winter collection. And this dress is what was born out of that collaboration. It was presented at Saraban Foundation. And in 2025, the Met asked to collect it for their permanent collection as well as it included in the annual fashion exhibition which opens the Met Gala.

[00:02:33]>> Okay. So, okay. Okay. Let me get let me get that straight. The Met the Met people saw this and was like, can we please have it and display it? Wow. What an honor, right? Oh, what did I just press? something.

[00:02:47]>> The end of 2025, I was told by my collaborator that they no longer wish to exhibit the work, that they were only putting in another piece >> that they designed on their own without me. And >> let me guess, which is the one on the left, which is the same [ __ ] thing.

[00:03:02]Well, it's not her one is clearly a lot more detailed, a lot nicer. Um, yeah, >> this was even confirmed by Andrew Bolton, OBBE, that the acquisition had fallen through and that he hoped to work with me in the future. So, you can understand my shock as I was sitting in my favorite cafe last Sunday to realize after being tagged in an Instagram post that my design was in fact in the Met.

[00:03:24]My collaborator was there standing next to it at the opening of the gala and I actually I couldn't I couldn't believe what was happening. I own the intellectual property rights to this fabric which I designed. There's a contractual agreement and everything. I have all the receipts.

[00:03:37]>> Good.

[00:03:37]>> Most of them from Andrew Bolton OB himself and his team. So, this is really wild. My sister and I also forewarned the Met and Ang Andrew Bolton OB that we'll be going public if they weren't able to appropriately rectify the mistake before the exhibition costume art opens to the public in New York City on Sunday the 10th of May 2026.

[00:03:56]And unlike the Met, I'm actually a woman of my word and I don't go quietly. So here we go.

[00:04:01]>> Yeah, good for you. That's stolen work.

[00:04:04]So she creates this piece. the me whoever asked to take it and permanently display it in a collection or temporarily display in a collection.

[00:04:12]They then say, "Oh, actually, no, we don't need it anymore. We're actually including one of our own designs." The own design is basically her design, but a ripoff version.

[00:04:22]It's like a lefthu if you will. The Metgal is displaying something like a copy of my work for the Metgal opening exhibition and eradicated my credit and paid my collaborator and didn't pay me.

[00:04:34]This is the dress in the exhibition.

[00:04:36]This is the original.

[00:04:38]Spot the >> You know what? It's Hers is so nice. It has all this detail to it. You can't see my mouse. And even the the black detailing going through it hangs nicer.

[00:04:48]It connects a little bit more. It looks like it's all part of the same dress.

[00:04:52]Whereas the one that they've put in looks like someone's gone to their parents and been like, "I want to be a mummy for Halloween." But a spooky one.

[00:05:02]No, but a sexy one.

[00:05:05]>> Turns out that the Met are refusing to own their role in this or hold themselves accountable because to do the right thing means accepting that Andrew Bolton OB and his team did the wrong thing. Instead, they are passing the responsibility onto myself and my collaborator to resolve our differences before they take any action and that they regret that the museum was not able to help us reach an agreement. So this is actually where it gets really interesting and I've learned a lot more about the legality of the matter too. So my solicitor John Sharples, a leading commercial IP and art lawyer here in the UK, has informed me that the Met would be committing its own acts of copyright and moral rights infringement if looked at through the lens of English copyright law. And I have now had lots of client offers from US lawyers.

[00:05:52]>> Nice.

[00:05:53]>> So much help make arguments based on American law. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:05:57]Thank you. Thank you so much. From a copyright perspective, it is absolutely clear that I was a joint author and therefore co-owner of the original artistic design. So taking all that information in the Met is not taking a neutral position at all because currently only one of us my collaborator is credited in the exhibition in the catalog museum website and internal object records. And instead all of this happened without my consent, without my knowledge, without any credit and without any warning. A museum has a responsibility to carry out something called due diligence. And museums are expected to take provenence really seriously. So this means documenting the history of an object's ownership, its custody, locations, but most significantly for my case, tracing an acquisition's journey of creation. And that means crediting people where credit is due. So surely it makes it even more peculiar that the Met have reached this decision when Andrew Bolton, Obbe, and his team knew that one, I existed in the first place. Two, agree that my collaborator had agreed that the intellectual property of the fabric belong to me. My collaborator had signed a written agreement saying so. And three, the Met agreed that they would give me credit on the exhibition label and within the exhibition catalog on the initial dress that we were agreeing for them to acquire. I cannot thank people enough. Uh these past two days have been >> But like do you want your name credited on the fake version of what you have or would it have to be like inspired by?

[00:07:17]You know, >> such kind words, incredible gestures, legal help, press getting in touch. I thought the internet was a dumpster fire. This has been so nice.

[00:07:25]>> Our attention has to be on the Met and not my collaborator. Doesn't mean that I'm not wanting to claim what is legally and morally mine, but the Met are using my collaborator as an excuse to relieve themselves of any accountability of their role in this. So, the focus has to be on them. I'm ready. And I'm making this video because as an artist, I often feel powerless like most artists at the mercy of this opaque industry.

[00:07:46]>> That's the thing as well when it comes to art and things like that. There are like copyright laws and stuff in but you bet there's always going to be as I say a reach around that's not the right word a um a loophole to be like oh well you know it's not our fault we copy that kind of thing like in this situation there is no update on this just yet >> the Met made me an offer this is where I said no quick recap if you're new the Mets Costume Institute were going to collect and display a dress I made with a collaborator for their opening exhibition of the Met Gala the acquisition was canled by my collaborator then without my knowledge the Met allowed my collaborator to create a replica or imitation of the dress which included my design work completely wiping me out of my contribution.

[00:08:27]It is wild to rewind a bit. I was previously unaware that I could publicly share the offer that was made to me, but I've discussed it with a few people who agree that transparency is important and helpful. So, in order to grant me my credit on a version of a dress I'm not happy to put my name to anyway and a payment of $1,329, which is what I originally quoted as the cost of my labor to produce a remake of the original, I would need to release my collaborator from any claims I might have anywhere forever in relation to the original design. If I agree to this offer, I would have to lose future sales and credit for my artistic contributions on this work for the rest of my life. I would also have to remove my videos and refrain from making any further public statements about this matter. In an article published this week in the new section of the Times UK, Shan Bradley got statements from myself, my collaborator, and the Met. But perhaps unsurprisingly, the Met is still shifting the responsibility onto myself and my collaborator. Part of my collaborator's argument in this article is that because they use different materials and methods to create the dress that's now on display, it therefore can't be seen as the same design. But that's not quite how it works. A copy of all or part of an artistic work doesn't stop being a copy because it's realized using different materials or medium. This includes the compositional elements around the placement of material, their proportions, how they are spaced, how the clumps of hair fall vertically or are pulled horizontally, the sort of visual decisions I make both in preparatory sketches and then intuitively on the loom as I weave in order to build up a composition I'm happy with, a composition that is mirrored in this iteration of the dress currently displayed in the Met. I want to stress that I was invited to join the original project as an artistic collaboration. My collaborator did not employ me or contract me as a kind of fabricator. I did not get paid. I was not asked to produce a piece of fabric for their pre-esigned collection or garment. Originally, the dress was going to be a coat. The design evolved as the weaving evolved as things do in collaboration. We responded to each other's ideas. And this is something that I'm actually very grateful the Times article actually picks up on. Sean Bradley references an early article which was published in Flynn magazine's 34th edition. In the Fenel article, my collaborator says they let go in the process of collaboration and that they wanted to work with me due to the unique aspects of my practice. And this is also what makes it really sad because that's also the recollection that I have. I made significant original and creative authoral contributions to the material and therefore to the design of the dress. And the creative side of our collaboration was really natural as he said in Fel. Though it is surprising to read now that he would tell the times that I was just following his creative direction because it did feel like a real fusion and reflection of our individual practices coming together into one piece. Uh as he calls it in artwork and because of that it was something that I was really proud of.

[00:11:07]I'm obviously not claiming any rights to the materials or fabrication methods used for the remake. The point is is that if subsequent iterations of the dress reproduce a substantial part of the original co-author design then that requires the permission of the other co-author. I do find it difficult to believe that this was not obvious to the Met, the expert authority in this situation. Look, perhaps the Met thought it was a fair offer to say, "Let's give Anushka what she was originally asking for and combine it with what I assume my collaborator has been asking for and then everyone is happy." But it's still not ethically or legally fair. It's not neutral because the Met have asked us as collaborators to figure it out. But the dress is still on display, still in the catalog, in the internal object records with just one collaborator's name. On the object label right now in the Met, it says that this dress on display was featured in my collaborator's autumn winter 2023 collection and that this is a new addition of that same dress. So, the Met are saying that this is not a completely new garment. It's a remake of the one that I collaborated on. So, then why am I not on the label? So, the main outcome I'm looking for is to secure the artistic integrity of the original work by swapping out the remake for one I'd be happy to put my name to, a small payment for the work involved, and then securing proper credit as co-author of that design along with my collaborator.

[00:12:18]When I said no to the Met's offer, and provided other alternatives, the Met removed themselves from negotiations, and this is where we're still at. And I believe a museum as an example of due diligence and protector of artistic endeavors should be encouraging artists to protect their creativity, develop it further in meaningful ways, and most significantly support us to advocate for ourselves and each other by helping us to understand our rights. Let's hope there won't be a part four and that the Met will do the right thing. But until then, wish me luck. It must feel kind of hopeless when you're going up against big big institutions like that with like money, money, money, money, money, and then you're just, you know, and then it's just you. It feels like you're by yourself doing your own thing. So, I'm glad lawyers have reached out and said, "Oh, no. We can help you fight the system, you know, fight the man."

[00:13:07]Let me know your opinions down below.

[00:13:08]Subscribe if you haven't already. Give this video a thumbs up. Watch out for the update on this. I'm I'm very interested. I will see you very, very soon. Bye.