Intellectual Property Blog

When Art Meets Auto: Daniel Arsham, Quavo, and the Battle Over a Ferrari Sculpture

The intersection of art and intellectual property law is rarely quiet and the recent dispute involving artist Daniel Arsham and rapper Quavo is revving up that conversation in a high-profile way. At the center of the dispute? A clay sculpture of a Ferrari crafted by Arsham and allegedly used without permission by Quavo in a music video and related promotional materials.

The lawsuit, filed by Arsham, raises questions about artistic authorship, fair use, and the limits of using protected visual works, particularly those inspired by, or incorporating, recognizable commercial designs like a Ferrari.

It also flips the typical script: instead of a brand suing an artist for unauthorized use, it’s the artist bringing the claim, asserting his ownership rights in a derivative or transformative representation of a luxury automobile.

The Dispute: Arsham’s Ferrari Sculpture in Quavo’s Video

Daniel Arsham, a well-known contemporary artist whose sculptures often depict decaying, eroded versions of cultural icons, created a clay Ferrari artwork as part of his exploration of time and material (Quartz Eroded 1961 Ferrari GT (2018)). The piece is unmistakably Ferrari in form but stylized in Arsham’s signature aesthetic, rendered in unpainted, weathered clay, giving it the look of an archaeological artifact.

According to the complaint, Quavo used a replica or digital rendering of Arsham’s sculpture in a music video and other visual content, allegedly without obtaining permission or providing credit. Arsham claims this unauthorized use violated his copyright and moral rights in the sculpture. 

Copyright and Sculpture: Protecting Visual Works

Sculptures are protected under U.S. copyright law as pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Assuming Arsham owns the copyright in the original clay Ferrari sculpture, he has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, display, or create derivative works based on it. In the complaint, Arsham maintains that the sculpture is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Quavo’s use of the sculpture (or something closely modeled after it) without Arsham’s permission, could infringe on those rights. Even if the sculpture resembles a real Ferrari, Arsham’s stylized, artistic interpretation may be sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, particularly if he modified the proportions, surface, or visual expression beyond the underlying car design.

But Wait, What About Ferrari?

That brings up a different layer of intellectual property: Ferrari’s rights in the trade dress, design patents, or trademarks associated with its iconic vehicles. Could Ferrari claim that Arsham’s sculpture, or Quavo’s use of it, infringes on Ferrari’s rights?

In recent years, Ferrari and other automakers have become more aggressive in protecting the distinctive look of their vehicles, even pursuing claims against toy makers and game developers for unauthorized replicas. While Arsham’s artwork may qualify as transformative fair use, a lawsuit from Ferrari isn’t entirely out of the question, especially if the artwork is commercialized or used in a commercial setting like a music video.

The Takeaway: Navigating IP in the Age of Remix Culture

This dispute underscores the fragility of collaboration between the creative industries - music, fine art, and commercial branding - and the legal friction that arises when works move from gallery to screen.

For artists, it’s a cautionary tale: even if your work references or reimagines a brand, you still have enforceable rights. And for musicians, directors, and content creators: using artwork, even as background or set design, requires clearance—especially when the work is iconic, stylized, or protected by a known artist.

It also highlights how fluid IP boundaries are becoming: who owns a car’s image when rendered in clay? What’s the dividing line between homage and infringement? As art, commerce, and content creation continue to converge, expect more cases like this, where a sculpture of a Ferrari might go from pedestal to courtroom.

Arsham v. Quality Control Music Publishing, LLC et al, 1:25-cv-012668 (SDNY).

Artwork: Quartz Eroded 1961 Ferrari GT (2018).

Katherine Moore Donnelly is an Associate of McBrayer PLLC, practicing in the firm's Lexington office. Her law practice primarily focuses on intellectual property, DMCA Agent Services, and transactional matters. Ms. Donnelly can be reached at kdonnelly@mcbrayerfirm.com or (859) 231-8780.

Services may be performed by others. This article does not constitute legal advice.