A Queer Eye jacket, a LEGO set, and a copyright fight? Let’s break it down.
Apparently, Antoni Porowski’s Queer Eye wardrobe has found itself in a legal drama, and this time, it has nothing to do with whether the rest of us could actually pull off the look.
The issue involves a black leather jacket, LEGO, and artist James Concannon, who sued the company in 2021 over artwork he says was copied for a Queer Eye LEGO set.
It Started With a Jacket
In 2018, Concannon created a custom black leather jacket for Porowski, who later wore it on Queer Eye in 2019.
Concannon says he holds copyright rights to the artwork on the jacket, including the individual elements and the way they were combined and arranged.
READ: How You Do Love: Travel and Thirst Traps Correctly According to Antoni and Zach
Enter the Fab 5
The toy set at the center of the dispute is LEGO Queer Eye – The Fab 5 Loft, now a retired product, based on the Netflix series.
The set includes a tiny Porowski minifigure wearing a jacket featuring artwork that Concannon alleges was copied from his original design.
Yes, a teeny-tiny Antoni is at the center of an actual copyright case. Suddenly, that little minifigure has a lot more legal baggage than we expected.
What Did LEGO Argue?
As first reported by The Fashion Law, Concannon filed his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in 2021. LEGO later asked Judge Omar A. Williams to grant summary judgment, which would have ended the relevant claims before trial.
The toy company argued that it had an implied license to use the artwork because Concannon had given the original jacket to Porowski and knew it would be worn publicly. The company also argued that its use of the design qualified as fair use.
The judge rejected those defenses at this stage.
READ: Hottie Antoni Porowski Looks V SEXY in Latest Post and the Gays Are Thirsting!
What Did the Judge Decide?
According to The Fashion Law, in a ruling issued September 27, 2026, Judge Williams “granted in part and denied in part LEGO’s motion for summary judgment.”
The ruling means Concannon can continue pursuing his copyright claims against LEGO, including allegations that the company directly used the artwork or was otherwise responsible for its use. The judge also found that simply giving Porowski the jacket, knowing he might wear it in public, did not automatically give the toy company permission to reproduce the artwork on its own products.
LEGO’s fair-use argument also did not hold up at this stage of the case. The court viewed the toy company’s use as commercial and determined that the reproduction did not change the original artwork enough to qualify as transformative use. In considering the issue, the judge also looked at the difference between something permanently attached to a person, such as a tattoo, and something removable, like clothing.
Still, Concannon did not get to keep every claim alive. The court sided with LEGO on the trade-dress portion of the lawsuit, granting the company summary judgment on that claim. His Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, however, can move forward.
So, Is LEGO Guilty?
The September 2026 ruling does not mean the toy company has been found liable for copyright infringement or ordered to pay damages. It means Concannon’s key copyright claims survived LEGO’s attempt to have them dismissed, so the dispute can continue.
In other words, this tiny jacket has turned into a very real legal battle.
We came for the Queer Eye makeover hoping to bring home a piece of the Fab Five at home and somehow ended up in copyright court.