Stanley Chow, a Manchester-based illustrator whose client list includes the New Yorker, discovered via a Sky News broadcast that the Conservative party had lifted his cartoon of Andy Burnham for use on water bottles distributed at their conference. The bottles bore the slogan "bottler Burnham" — a juvenile dig at the prime minister. Nobody at Conservative HQ asked Chow's permission, credited him, or paid him. Chow originally created the cartoon for campaign material during the Makerfield byelection in June. The Conservatives simply appropriated the image and repurposed it for their own political messaging. Chow told the Guardian he is taking legal advice and may pursue a copyright infringement claim. His solicitor, Colin Bell of law firm Brabners, called it "a clear case of copyright infringement" and said Chow is entitled to an injunction, compensation, and a public apology. This is not an isolated incident for Chow. Reform UK also used his cartoon in an anti-immigration attack advert on social media — a political stance Chow does not endorse. Two separate political parties have now used his work without consent, attaching it to messages he did not approve. The structural issue is straightforward: political parties are treating creative work as free raw material. The Conservatives are a well-funded institution with access to legal teams. The failure to check copyright on a commercially distributed item is not a mistake — it is a culture of indifference toward the people who make things. Chow wrote to the Tories asking for an explanation. He has not heard back. Bell laid out the legal position plainly: Chow is entitled to undertakings to cease and desist, takedown of the infringing works, compensation, and a public apology. The claim is about establishing that artists' work, rights, and reputations cannot be conscripted as collateral in political campaigns without consent. The Conservatives have been contacted for comment and have not responded. The silence is the tell. A party that lectures on property rights and rule of law has, on this evidence, helped itself to someone else's property and ignored the rules.
