Watches of Switzerland, Ex-Creative Director File Rival Lawsuits

A high-profile dispute has erupted between Watches of Switzerland and its former creative director over hundreds of watch-centric photos and videos. The legal battle – which is unfolding in federal courts in Florida and Ohio, pits Watches of Switzerland against Jay Gullion and Shawn Carter Creative, Gullion’s boutique creative agency – centers on some 800 high-end photo and video campaigns used to market brands like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Omega, and TAG Heuer, and critically, who holds the rights in such creative works. 

At stake in the two cases, as first reported by TFL, is not only control over a plethora of luxury marketing assets, but also a broader question of how creative authorship is defined in the event that the line between employee and independent contractor is blurred.

Watches of Switzerland’s Suit

Watches of Switzerland filed suit against Gullion and Shawn Carter Creative (“SCC”) on August 1, seeking a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that it owns the copyrights for the photos and videos used in its marketing campaigns, “many of which were created while Mr. Gullion was an employee.” In its complaint, Watches of Switzerland claims that Gullion was a full-time employee from 2022 to 2025, and that the work in question – including Rolex Certified Pre-Owned campaigns – was produced squarely within the scope of that employment, making it the rightful owner of the content.

According to Watches of Switzerland, all of the imagery and videos at issue were directed, financed, and controlled by the company; Gullion, in his role as creative director, produced the works as work made-for-hire; and while “some production services were provided by SCC, [they] were made at the instance and expense of [Watches of Switzerland, which] was the motivating factor for [their] creation.” 

Gullion always acknowledged Watches of Switzerland’s ownership of the creative output, but that changed when Gullion’s employment was terminated, the watch retailer contends. At that point, Watches of Switzerland says that he began claiming rights in the campaigns, sending Digital Millennium Copyright Act copyright notices to Watches of Switzerland’s online service providers, claiming ownership of many of the works, and also refusing to turn over the final Rolex campaign files. 

Against that background, Watches of Switzerland is accusing Gullion of conversion and is looking for a declaration from the court that it is the owner of the rights in 800-plus ad campaigns.

A Different Story

Not the first – or only – case on this front: Eight days before Watches of Switzerland filed suit, SCC lodged a complaint of its own, telling a markedly different story. In the lawsuit that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on July 24, SCC alleges that while Gullion took on the role of creative director in 2022, Watches of Switzerland and SCC “maintain[ed] a separate relationship for the production and creation of … images and videos.”

In a bid to show independent contract status (and ownership of the works), SCC claims that it used its own resources – including equipment, talent, and funding – to create the campaigns, invoiced Watches of Switzerland for the work, and was issued 1099 tax forms annually. The luxury watch and jewelry retailer was granted limited usage rights to the content, per SCC, and those rights were tied to Gullion’s employment and expired upon his termination in April 2025. However, SCC alleges that Watches of Switzerland has continued to use between 800 and 1,000 of its media assets across digital and physical platforms since then without authorization. 

Setting out claims of copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, SCC argues that Watches of Switzerland is on the hook for damages for the “unlawful exploitation” of some of its most valuable creative assets. SCC is also seeking injunctive relief to bar the company from continuing to use the works at issue, as well as a ruling that it owns (or co-owns) the works. 

THE BOTTOM LINE: With both sides asserting ownership over the same creative assets, and SCC arguing that there is “no work-for-hire or copyright assignment agreement between [it] and Watches of Switzerland,” the courts will likely be forced to decide whether the works qualify as works made-for-hire, whether Watches of Switzerland had an implied license, and whether SCC may be entitled to joint authorship or profit-sharing. Gullion’s creative output – and ownership of it – will be governed by his employment agreement with Watches of Switzerland, which almost certainly includes a work for hire provision that assigns all of the works he created during his employment to the watch retailer.

Maybe more significant than the clash over content, the dueling lawsuits speak to the potential legal gray zone in modern creative work, where employment, freelance production, and intellectual property frequently overlap. 

The cases are Watches of Switzerland, LLC v. Shawn Carter Creative, LLC, 0:25-cv-61562 (S.D. Fla.) and Shawn Carter Creative, LLC v. Watches of Switzerland Group USA Inc., 2:25-cv-00820 (S.D. Ohio).