Can you own a beauty technique?

The beauty industry, a realm built on shared inspiration and evolving artistry, found itself at a critical juncture in May 2025. The launch of celebrity makeup artist Patrick Ta’s "Transition Blush" line ignited a firestorm of accusations and a profound discussion about intellectual property rights, particularly concerning the uncodified techniques that form the bedrock of makeup artistry. The controversy centered on allegations that Ta had appropriated a signature blush application method popularized by Black makeup artist Ngozi Esther Edeme, also known as Paintedbyesther.

The Spark: A Viral Product Launch and Social Media Outcry

Patrick Ta, a renowned makeup artist with a clientele that includes Hollywood’s elite, unveiled his "Transition Blush" line on May 20, 2025. To showcase the product, he released a series of nine instructional tutorials across social media platforms. In one such tutorial, Ta described his creation as a means to elevate blush application from "beautiful to brightened-blurred-baddie." However, the comment sections of these videos quickly became a battleground. Users, echoing a growing sentiment, relentlessly demanded recognition for another artist. Phrases like "Say her name," and direct exclamations of "ESTHERRRRRRRR," flooded the comment sections, accompanied by memes and graphics, indicating a widespread belief that Ta’s new product and technique bore a striking resemblance to the work of Ngozi Esther Edeme.

Edeme, a viral sensation in the makeup community, has carved out a significant niche for her vibrant and expertly blended blush applications, particularly on darker skin tones. Her signature "gradient blush" or "transition blush" technique, which seamlessly blends blush from the under-eye area down to the apples of the cheeks, creating a soft, diffused gradient, had garnered significant attention and admiration online. The widespread outcry suggested that Ta’s "Transition Blush" was not merely a new product, but an attempt to commercialize a technique that many believed Edeme had pioneered and popularized within the contemporary digital beauty landscape.

A Timeline of Accusations and Apologies

The controversy escalated rapidly. Following the initial backlash, Edeme herself posted a series of "callout" videos, supported by numerous fans and fellow makeup artists, who accused Ta of plagiarism and of profiting from the creative labor of a Black female artist. The allegations pointed to a pattern within the beauty industry where the innovations of Black creators, particularly women, are often overlooked or appropriated by larger, more established entities without proper attribution or compensation.

In response to the mounting pressure and the viral nature of the accusations, Patrick Ta issued a public apology on Tuesday, June 16, 2025. He stated that while it was not his intention "to claim ownership over a blush technique," he acknowledged the concerns and took accountability for the situation. This apology, however, did little to quell the broader conversation about intellectual property and artistic credit in the beauty world.

The Legal Landscape: Techniques vs. Trademarks

The "Transition Blush" controversy threw into sharp relief the complex and often ambiguous legal framework surrounding intellectual property in the beauty industry. A key point of contention was whether a makeup technique, which is inherently an abstract method of application, could be legally protected.

According to Antonella Colella, a US-based beauty lawyer with nearly 17 years of experience, the answer is a definitive no. "You can’t trademark a technique," Colella stated. "A trademark relates to a good or a service. You cannot protect a methodology." This legal stance is mirrored in the UK, where beauty techniques are classified as "abstract methods"—means to achieve certain aesthetic outcomes—and thus are not eligible for legal protection.

What can be protected, however, is the nomenclature and branding associated with a product. Patrick Ta Beauty filed a trademark application for the phrase "Transition Blush" on May 7, 2025. This application served to protect the product’s name as a source identifier, ensuring that Ta’s brand would be the sole entity legally permitted to use the term "Transition Blush" on products or in marketing campaigns. This legal protection is standard practice for brands aiming to distinguish their offerings and prevent competitors from capitalizing on their product names. It means that anyone discussing or covering the trend would need to credit the brand or use alternative terminology.

Colella further elaborated on the strategic importance of branding: "I always counsel that you should build a brand around the name so that everybody will know you from that name, and when they see that particular application, they immediately will think of you. If you connect it to a product, you connect it to something that you can get the trademark for." This highlights a significant disconnect: while the law readily protects the commercial identifiers of beauty products, it leaves the underlying creative processes and techniques vulnerable to appropriation.

The Genesis of Transition Blush: A Legacy of Inspiration

Crucially, neither Patrick Ta nor Esther Edeme invented the "transition blush" technique. The concept of a blush that seamlessly transitions from the under-eye area to the cheeks, creating a gradient effect, can be traced back to the legendary makeup artist Kevyn Aucoin. In his seminal 1997 book, Making Faces, Aucoin detailed various innovative makeup techniques, including approaches to blush application that laid the groundwork for what is now known as transition blush. In 2015, Aucoin’s own brand launched a gradient blush product named "Neo-Blush," further solidifying the concept.

However, the modern popularization and refinement of this technique, especially for a social media-driven audience and particularly on diverse skin tones, is widely attributed to Esther Edeme. Her signature application has become so recognizable that it is often referred to as "Esther’s blush" within the online beauty community. Her work has been extensively featured and discussed, including in a prominent 2025 interview with Dazed, which heavily focused on her innovative blush techniques.

Camille Lawrence, founder of the Black Beauty Archive, a platform dedicated to preserving and celebrating the contributions of Black women in beauty, articulated the concept of "indexical marks" in this context. "We can see that technique on Chloe Bailey or on Olandria and think: that was Esther’s hand on that," Lawrence explained. This suggests that while legal ownership of a technique may be impossible, an artist’s distinctive style can become an undeniable aesthetic signature, recognizable and attributable to them by the community, regardless of formal IP protection.

Beyond Blush: Broader Implications for the Beauty Industry

The "Transition Blush" controversy is not an isolated incident. The beauty industry, particularly in its digital iteration, operates on a foundation of shared knowledge, adaptation, and rapid dissemination of trends. This has created an environment where inspiration and appropriation can easily blur. Social media platforms, designed for remixing and recreation, further exacerbate this phenomenon.

The implications extend beyond makeup techniques. The fragrance industry, for instance, grapples with a burgeoning "dupe" market. Companies selling scents "inspired by" designer perfumes at significantly lower prices are commonplace. Perfumers like David-Lev Jipa-Slivinschi of Toskovat and Francis Kurkdjian have publicly decried this practice as plagiarism, citing a lack of ethical considerations regarding intellectual property in the industry. While brands can trademark logos, product names, and even bottle shapes, the actual chemical formulas of perfumes remain largely unprotected. Mireille Dagger, legal director at Broadfield law firm, noted in The Guardian that "When it comes to scent, you just can’t do that, because scent is subjective. Different people smell different things." This subjectivity makes legal recourse for fragrance formula appropriation extremely challenging.

Documenting Artistry: The Power of Education and Community

Given the limitations of legal protection for techniques, the beauty community has historically relied on other methods to document and legitimize artistic innovations. As Camille Lawrence explained, "Because beauty is ephemeral, in the past, how we’ve documented, and kind of stamped legitimacy on our techniques has been through educational videos, trade shows, DIY step-by-steps in magazines." In the digital age, these educational videos and tutorials have become paramount.

Interestingly, on May 27, 2025, the same day Patrick Ta’s "Transition Blush" line officially launched online, Edeme’s collaboration with MAC Cosmetics was released. Her edition of MACzine, a digital publication, featured a cover story with Olandria Carthen, and the zine’s subtitle proudly proclaimed "The Art of Gradient Blush." Edeme described this as a "full circle moment," expressing profound gratitude that her "blush journey," which had been met with significant negativity, was being cemented by a legendary brand like MAC.

Edeme’s collaboration with MAC coincided with her travels for a NYX masterclass in South Africa. While online discussions continued to question the authorship of the transition blush technique, Edeme was actively engaged in teaching and sharing her expertise globally. This act of disseminating her knowledge, rather than hoarding it, underscores a commitment to education and empowerment that often defines artists who champion their craft.

The Future of Credit and Compensation

The Patrick Ta and Esther Edeme incident serves as a potent case study for the ongoing evolution of intellectual property in creative industries, particularly those heavily influenced by digital culture. It highlights the critical need for greater recognition and attribution for foundational work, especially from marginalized creators. While legal frameworks struggle to keep pace with the rapid innovation and dissemination of techniques in the beauty world, the power of community, education, and diligent documentation remains a crucial, albeit informal, mechanism for asserting artistic ownership. As beauty consumers become increasingly aware of provenance and demand greater transparency, the pressure on brands and creators to acknowledge and credit their inspirations will likely intensify, pushing the industry towards a more equitable future for artistic recognition. The "blurred lines" of beauty, it seems, are slowly beginning to sharpen, demanding a clearer definition of who truly owns the artistry.