The (pink) line between protecting equity and stifling creativity

Stuart Semple’s “The Pinkest Pink” is protest in a pigment

Last night I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the perfect pink for a client's logo. I came across this viral story from 2016 about the great Vantablack vs Pinkest Pink feud and my first reaction was to laugh at the ridiculousness.

For anyone who missed it: Anish Kapoor locked down exclusive rights to Vantablack (the darkest black ever made). In response, Stuart Semple created “The Pinkest Pink” and made it available to everyone in the world… except Kapoor.

At surface level, it’s a petty art-world squabble. But it’s also a sharp commentary on gatekeeping creativity. In branding and design, we protect assets all the time - colors, fonts, icons - and there are good reasons for that. But when ownership crosses into exclusivity, it raises the question: at what point does protecting equity turn into limiting innovation?

Semple’s pink wasn’t just pigment, it was a protest. A reminder that creative tools are most powerful when they’re shared. Of course, when I used The Pinkest Pink on my client’s logo, she still asked me to “make it pop more” (I joke, I joke).

What do you think: where’s the line between protecting brand equity and stifling creative freedom?