The Ownership of Creativity...
- Thread starter softgrey
- Start date
softgrey said:where is movado based then?...
Softie, you are making me eat my words (almost) 
. They are incorporated in the US 
They just manufacture in Switzerland. I was positive that they are a Swiss company. 
In any case the original comment is true, because of the US court system, most companies try to sue for money in the US.
Mis.T said:For the past 5 or 6 years I have seen so many items of clothing on the runway, that can be found in my mums wardrobe (atm im wearing most of her clothes argh) the only difference is the fabric is lacking a bit more now (patterns etc may be a tad better). Does anyone notice this? The garments are not constructed as greatly as say 15 years ago. I think this reflects the public in a way, we are becoming more relaxed, bit more lazy, not as creative, we have machines to think and work for us now, you don’t even need to be able to draw or construct garments to be a designer, you can just express your ideas get others to draw damn charlatans...... maybe I am very wrong feel free to correct me.
I don't agree with this, when I try on my mom's clothes from the 70s (ok, so that was thirty years ago, not 15) I find the fabrics stiff and rough. Everything, even stuff from regular stores looks somewhat roughly put together. When i was in a consignment store the other day, old armani outfits even looked rough as far as material and construction.
I think less care might be put into making garments now adays, but the construction still seems better. If that makes sense. Care does not always mean quality. It just means effort.
fashionista-ta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,263
- Reaction score
- 776
Arturo21 said:There must be a lot of sensitivity in this topic, though. Dooney and Bourke obviously copied Vuitton. However, many designers can draw similarities to one another and they may not even have looked at the other designer's work, but then they're sued for imitating? Sometimes, like in the LV v. D&B case, something should be done. Other times, however, it's hard to tell if they're being copied or not. I myself have designed things in my head and/or on paper and and then later on look at some designer's collection and noticed that it's been done before. I didn't copy, as I had never see that collection before. If that happens just with me imagining things in my head, imagine that on a larger scale with major designers.
Good idea for a paper, though, Faust. Very good. I really hope to see your paper soon and I hope it turns out really nicely for you.
Good point here, and something that's barely been mentioned on this thread. Because of a phenomenon sometimes called "the spirit of the age," or "collective consciousness," it's not that unusual for the same thing to be "invented" in two places around the same time by two people who've never had contact with each other. I agree that if everyone's got the same trend books, that's suspect #1. But this is a reasonable back-up ... as was written a few thousand years ago, "there is nothing new under the sun."
hikarupanda
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,077
- Reaction score
- 0
What do you think about copyright protection for fashion design??
I was just reading this article on AOL money and finance, what do you think? I agree with the intention but I am not sure how to draw the line, to me there's a huge grey area....
Updated: 10:38 PM EDT
O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War
By ERIC WILSON, The New York Times
March 30) - For readers of Marie Claire, one of its most popular monthly features is Splurge vs. Steal, a column that shows an expensive runway look next to a knockoff costing a fraction of the price. But within the fashion trade the magazine column is roundly disliked, at least by designers whose work is included under the Splurge heading."I wish the magazine wouldn't encourage that kind of behavior," said Behnaz Sarafpour, after seeing an issue in which her $1,565 silk trench coat was shown next to a similar design for $159 from Jones New York. "I mean, thanks for the lovely picture, but no thanks."
Customers who crave inexpensive designer look-alikes at retailers like H&M and Zara or close-enoughs at Gap and Banana Republic or line-for-line copies of Oscar gowns by the label ABS may have little empathy for designers who denounce knockoffs.
Lesley Jane Seymour, the editor in chief of Marie Claire, which has included designer clones in Splurge vs. Steal by Banana Republic, Steve Madden and American Eagle Outfitters, said shoppers understand — and generally approve — how fashion offers them expensive runway originals alongside lower-price versions of the same styles.
But those inexpensive copies could be history if the Council of Fashion Designers of America has its way in a new anti-copying campaign in Washington.
Designers like Diane Von Furstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and Zac Posen have been journeying there to lobby for copyright protections like those governing books, music and other creative arts. Mr. Posen was in Washington on Tuesday with Steven Kolb, the executive director of the council, who said a bill could be introduced in Congress as early as today by Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
Mr. Rodriguez designed the white slip wedding gown worn by Caroline Bessette Kennedy in 1996, a style that inspired innumerable brides to don copies, and Ms. Von Furstenberg's signature wrap dresses have been copied so many times that she may no longer wish to be associated with them. They are asking lawmakers to support a proposed fashion design anti-piracy act.
If passed, it could change the retail landscape in ways merchants and designers are only beginning to absorb. Major department stores with private labels, which often include close copies of designer looks, are divided on the proposed law because they also do business with the offended designers.
At the same time a prohibition on copying dresses, coats and the like would seem to open an impossibly murky debate over how to separate a duplicate garment from one simply inspired by someone else's work and part of a fashion trend.
But for the Council of Fashion Designers the issue is black and white. Rather than calling imitation the sincerest form of flattery, as they have done for decades, leading designers are acknowledging that inexpensive copies — which they label acts of piracy — have negatively affected the luxury business.
"Piracy in fashion is rampant," Mr. Rodriguez said, recalling a lunch meeting he had with senators last July, when he held up one of his $1,500 designs next to a newspaper advertisement for a nearly identical dress at Macy's, selling for $199.
Copyright law protects a creator of original material — like a songwriter or screenwriter — for her life plus 70 years. But clothing is not protected. In 1998 Representative Howard Coble, a Republican from North Carolina, introduced a revision to the copyright law that classified boat hulls as a design protected for 10 years. Citing the boat hull statute, fashion designers are asking for similar protection for clothing designs for three years.
Hypothetically that would mean that Allen B. Schwartz, the owner and designer of ABS, the leading brand in the $300 million business of Oscar knockoffs, would be restricted to selling copies of the embroidered beige Elie Saab gown worn by Halle Berry in 2003, not the latest Vera Wang yellow butterfly ruffles for Michelle Williams.
"That is the most ridiculous thing," Mr. Schwartz said. "There is no such thing as an original design. All these designers are getting their inspiration from things that were done before. To me a spaghetti strap is a spaghetti strap, and a cowl neck is a cowl neck."
I was just reading this article on AOL money and finance, what do you think? I agree with the intention but I am not sure how to draw the line, to me there's a huge grey area....
Updated: 10:38 PM EDT
O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War
By ERIC WILSON, The New York Times
March 30) - For readers of Marie Claire, one of its most popular monthly features is Splurge vs. Steal, a column that shows an expensive runway look next to a knockoff costing a fraction of the price. But within the fashion trade the magazine column is roundly disliked, at least by designers whose work is included under the Splurge heading."I wish the magazine wouldn't encourage that kind of behavior," said Behnaz Sarafpour, after seeing an issue in which her $1,565 silk trench coat was shown next to a similar design for $159 from Jones New York. "I mean, thanks for the lovely picture, but no thanks."
Customers who crave inexpensive designer look-alikes at retailers like H&M and Zara or close-enoughs at Gap and Banana Republic or line-for-line copies of Oscar gowns by the label ABS may have little empathy for designers who denounce knockoffs.
Lesley Jane Seymour, the editor in chief of Marie Claire, which has included designer clones in Splurge vs. Steal by Banana Republic, Steve Madden and American Eagle Outfitters, said shoppers understand — and generally approve — how fashion offers them expensive runway originals alongside lower-price versions of the same styles.
But those inexpensive copies could be history if the Council of Fashion Designers of America has its way in a new anti-copying campaign in Washington.
Designers like Diane Von Furstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and Zac Posen have been journeying there to lobby for copyright protections like those governing books, music and other creative arts. Mr. Posen was in Washington on Tuesday with Steven Kolb, the executive director of the council, who said a bill could be introduced in Congress as early as today by Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
Mr. Rodriguez designed the white slip wedding gown worn by Caroline Bessette Kennedy in 1996, a style that inspired innumerable brides to don copies, and Ms. Von Furstenberg's signature wrap dresses have been copied so many times that she may no longer wish to be associated with them. They are asking lawmakers to support a proposed fashion design anti-piracy act.
If passed, it could change the retail landscape in ways merchants and designers are only beginning to absorb. Major department stores with private labels, which often include close copies of designer looks, are divided on the proposed law because they also do business with the offended designers.
At the same time a prohibition on copying dresses, coats and the like would seem to open an impossibly murky debate over how to separate a duplicate garment from one simply inspired by someone else's work and part of a fashion trend.
But for the Council of Fashion Designers the issue is black and white. Rather than calling imitation the sincerest form of flattery, as they have done for decades, leading designers are acknowledging that inexpensive copies — which they label acts of piracy — have negatively affected the luxury business.
"Piracy in fashion is rampant," Mr. Rodriguez said, recalling a lunch meeting he had with senators last July, when he held up one of his $1,500 designs next to a newspaper advertisement for a nearly identical dress at Macy's, selling for $199.
Copyright law protects a creator of original material — like a songwriter or screenwriter — for her life plus 70 years. But clothing is not protected. In 1998 Representative Howard Coble, a Republican from North Carolina, introduced a revision to the copyright law that classified boat hulls as a design protected for 10 years. Citing the boat hull statute, fashion designers are asking for similar protection for clothing designs for three years.
Hypothetically that would mean that Allen B. Schwartz, the owner and designer of ABS, the leading brand in the $300 million business of Oscar knockoffs, would be restricted to selling copies of the embroidered beige Elie Saab gown worn by Halle Berry in 2003, not the latest Vera Wang yellow butterfly ruffles for Michelle Williams.
"That is the most ridiculous thing," Mr. Schwartz said. "There is no such thing as an original design. All these designers are getting their inspiration from things that were done before. To me a spaghetti strap is a spaghetti strap, and a cowl neck is a cowl neck."
hikarupanda
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,077
- Reaction score
- 0
(article continues...) A violet ABS dress with swooping satin panels along the hips and bust line, selling at Bloomingdales.com for $169.99, is a prime example of the argument by designers that there is a difference between following trends and what they call piracy. Apart from the shade of purple, it looks identical to a dress costing more than $1,000 that Mr. Posen showed in his spring 2004 collection.
"They are stealing at the expense of creativity," said Valerie Salembier, the publisher of Harper's Bazaar, which devoted its January issue to counterfeit fashion. "It's not fair or reasonable or correct to steal that design from someone."
But Ms. Seymour of Marie Claire said there is room in stores for both originals and knockoffs. "If you go into any department store, you can take the elevator to one floor and see the designer look and then take the elevator to the next floor and see the interpreted look," she said. "It's like when you go to the Shop & Stop, you have the real Raisin Bran and then the generic raisin bran. Both have their buyers. Neither one has put the other out of business."
The National Retail Federation, the retailers' lobby, has not taken a position on the proposed legislation, said J. Craig Sherman, its vice president for government affairs. "We are staying neutral on the matter," he said. "We tend to take a position when there is a consensus in our industry on an issue. There is not a consensus on this issue."
The proposal also presents complications for designers who draw inspiration from the same sources. For instance, when "Memoirs of a Geisha" was released last year, obi belts and kimono sleeves appeared in more than one runway collection. This month Hussein Chalayan and Martin Margiela both offered fall collections that turned slipcovers and armchair upholstery into skirts and jackets. Inspiration, as designers say, is in the air.
"How do you copyright fashion design?" asked the designer Jeffrey Chow, whose $1,000 blush satin dress was shown next to a $245 duplicate by ABS in Marie Claire's November 2004 issue. But Mr. Chow sees only futility in trying to fight such copying. "It's not like a typeface or a song," he said. "There are no boundaries in fashion."
Stan Herman, the president of the Council of Fashion Designers, sees the matter as clear cut. "It's not as complex as everybody's making it," he said. "To take somebody's design and make a line-for-line copy, that should be stopped."
The reason clothing design is not protected under copyright or trademark law in the United States is that it is considered foremost as a utilitarian item, not an artistic expression or scientific invention. (Logos, however, and some design signatures — like the three stripes on Adidas track suits — are protected from copying under trademark statutes.)
But the designers' trade group argues that the legal principle exempting fashion from copyright protection — a 200-year-old idea that useful objects should be unregulated to encourage the growth of industry — is outdated in this era of sophisticated mass copying.
"The whole underpinning of that 200-year-old law of functionality was to promote creativity and innovation," said Alain Coblence, a lawyer hired by the Council of Fashion Designers and by fashion trade groups in Paris and Milan, which also promote the legislation. "Yet the situation is exactly the reverse because designers now must ask what is the incentive to innovate if you know your creation is going to be stolen within days and your designs are going to be used before you have a chance to use them for yourself?"
Although designers have occasionally pursued cases of design piracy in court, only the most egregious cases have been successful. In 1980 a federal appellate court held that a pair of belt buckles by the accessories designer Barry Kieselstein-Cord were not ordinary buckles but had reached the level of creative art. (A dissenting judge argued, "Innovations of form are inseparable from the more important function they serve — helping to keep the tops of trousers at waist level.")
"They are stealing at the expense of creativity," said Valerie Salembier, the publisher of Harper's Bazaar, which devoted its January issue to counterfeit fashion. "It's not fair or reasonable or correct to steal that design from someone."
But Ms. Seymour of Marie Claire said there is room in stores for both originals and knockoffs. "If you go into any department store, you can take the elevator to one floor and see the designer look and then take the elevator to the next floor and see the interpreted look," she said. "It's like when you go to the Shop & Stop, you have the real Raisin Bran and then the generic raisin bran. Both have their buyers. Neither one has put the other out of business."
The National Retail Federation, the retailers' lobby, has not taken a position on the proposed legislation, said J. Craig Sherman, its vice president for government affairs. "We are staying neutral on the matter," he said. "We tend to take a position when there is a consensus in our industry on an issue. There is not a consensus on this issue."
The proposal also presents complications for designers who draw inspiration from the same sources. For instance, when "Memoirs of a Geisha" was released last year, obi belts and kimono sleeves appeared in more than one runway collection. This month Hussein Chalayan and Martin Margiela both offered fall collections that turned slipcovers and armchair upholstery into skirts and jackets. Inspiration, as designers say, is in the air.
"How do you copyright fashion design?" asked the designer Jeffrey Chow, whose $1,000 blush satin dress was shown next to a $245 duplicate by ABS in Marie Claire's November 2004 issue. But Mr. Chow sees only futility in trying to fight such copying. "It's not like a typeface or a song," he said. "There are no boundaries in fashion."
Stan Herman, the president of the Council of Fashion Designers, sees the matter as clear cut. "It's not as complex as everybody's making it," he said. "To take somebody's design and make a line-for-line copy, that should be stopped."
The reason clothing design is not protected under copyright or trademark law in the United States is that it is considered foremost as a utilitarian item, not an artistic expression or scientific invention. (Logos, however, and some design signatures — like the three stripes on Adidas track suits — are protected from copying under trademark statutes.)
But the designers' trade group argues that the legal principle exempting fashion from copyright protection — a 200-year-old idea that useful objects should be unregulated to encourage the growth of industry — is outdated in this era of sophisticated mass copying.
"The whole underpinning of that 200-year-old law of functionality was to promote creativity and innovation," said Alain Coblence, a lawyer hired by the Council of Fashion Designers and by fashion trade groups in Paris and Milan, which also promote the legislation. "Yet the situation is exactly the reverse because designers now must ask what is the incentive to innovate if you know your creation is going to be stolen within days and your designs are going to be used before you have a chance to use them for yourself?"
Although designers have occasionally pursued cases of design piracy in court, only the most egregious cases have been successful. In 1980 a federal appellate court held that a pair of belt buckles by the accessories designer Barry Kieselstein-Cord were not ordinary buckles but had reached the level of creative art. (A dissenting judge argued, "Innovations of form are inseparable from the more important function they serve — helping to keep the tops of trousers at waist level.")
Last edited by a moderator:
hikarupanda
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,077
- Reaction score
- 0
(article continues...) European laws have been more favorable to designers, although with tangled results. Yves Saint Laurent sued Ralph Lauren in 1994 in a Paris court over Mr. Lauren's design of a tuxedo dress. Mr. Lauren was found guilty of copying and fined roughly $300,000. At the same time a Saint Laurent executive was found guilty of denigrating Mr. Lauren's character and fined $90,000.
Copying has been embedded in American fashion since the beginning of mass production of ready-to-wear designs. From the 1930's to the 60's, buyers from American department stores would attend haute-couture shows in Paris and purchase original patterns, taking them home to be mass-produced. Regular couture clients like Babe Paley and Nan Kempner used to arrive in limousines, along with women who took the subway, at Orbach's on West 34th Street to see its twice annual "couture adaptation" shows.
But Mr. Coblence and American designers argue that the globalization of fashion needs a different perspective on copycats from their glamorized portrayal in the 1963 movie "A New Kind of Love," in which Joanne Woodward went to Paris on such a buying trip.
Some trademark lawyers believe they have a case. "People now have more disposable income," said Deborah Wilcox, a chairwoman of the intellectual property practice of Baker Hostetler in Cleveland. "You don't need to clothe yourself just for warmth. This is one area that has stood out that has not had protection that seems close to other areas that do have protection."
Gela Taylor, one of the designers of Juicy Couture, whose luxury sweat suits have been much knocked off, said she planned to visit Washington from Los Angeles next month to push for the bill.
"I don't think anybody's naïve about this," Ms. Taylor said. "Fashion is a strange and ephemeral thing. But this proposal is for people who are not inspired by anything but looking for an easy way to make money."
Copying has been embedded in American fashion since the beginning of mass production of ready-to-wear designs. From the 1930's to the 60's, buyers from American department stores would attend haute-couture shows in Paris and purchase original patterns, taking them home to be mass-produced. Regular couture clients like Babe Paley and Nan Kempner used to arrive in limousines, along with women who took the subway, at Orbach's on West 34th Street to see its twice annual "couture adaptation" shows.
But Mr. Coblence and American designers argue that the globalization of fashion needs a different perspective on copycats from their glamorized portrayal in the 1963 movie "A New Kind of Love," in which Joanne Woodward went to Paris on such a buying trip.
Some trademark lawyers believe they have a case. "People now have more disposable income," said Deborah Wilcox, a chairwoman of the intellectual property practice of Baker Hostetler in Cleveland. "You don't need to clothe yourself just for warmth. This is one area that has stood out that has not had protection that seems close to other areas that do have protection."
Gela Taylor, one of the designers of Juicy Couture, whose luxury sweat suits have been much knocked off, said she planned to visit Washington from Los Angeles next month to push for the bill.
"I don't think anybody's naïve about this," Ms. Taylor said. "Fashion is a strange and ephemeral thing. But this proposal is for people who are not inspired by anything but looking for an easy way to make money."
Last edited by a moderator:
F
fashionologie
Guest
from yahoo:
Washington Seeks to Sink Fashion Pirates
Lindsay Sammon Mon Apr 10, 5:25 PM ET
Fashion Wire Daily - New York - We've all done it. Whether we made the purchase or not, we've all at least thought about putting our wallets above our conscience and investing in a good, quality, knockoff.
It seems harmless, but according to the United States Customs and Border Protection, American businesses lose between $200-$250 billion a year in valid sales due to the production of counterfeited merchandise. Though most nations protect fashion designs under property protection laws, the United States currently does not award copyrights to apparel because the bestower of patents - who clearly missed McQueen's fall 2006 giant gauze-wrapped deer antler headdress - deems clothing "useful articles," not works of art.
While logos and names can be trademarked and protected - earlier this month Seven For All Mankind was awarded $4 million in damages from a trademark-counterfeiting suit - specific designs are unprotected. Looking to amend the status quo is Congressman Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, who has recently approached the House Committee on the Judiciary with the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. The proposal moves to amend the Copyright Act to provide legal protection for fashion designs for a period of three years.
This anti-piracy act has support from the Council of Fashion Designers of America among other industry big shots, but some insiders consider it unrealistic. And with the intangibility that is inherent in a clothing design, figuring out the specifics could result in years of deliberation before the act passes.
"I think the probability of this getting passed is less than 50%," said Steve Pruitt, Senior Consultant for Blacks Retail Analysis, a service for trend forecasting, market research, and retail information in the fine jewelry and apparel markets. "This is a hard set of rules to establish. It's not like software or a book, or a piece of music with distinct characteristics. Where are the lines going to be drawn?"
Pruitt, who has been involved in the industry for over 30 years, sees the act has as addressing a justifiable concern, but an idea that is "frivolous" at best.
It is easy to trademark a fabric or name of a collection, but when it comes to the length of a sleeve, or the silhouette of a dress, there are more gray areas. To truly make this legit, legislation will have to cover garments down to the inch.
"As soon as you establish those laws," said Pruitt, "you establish a criteria that says 'you can't do anything aside from this.'"
Yet through his experience with the fine jewelry industry as well, which does protect designs, Pruitt has seen the ways in which counterfeiters can find loopholes - add a little, take away a little - to make the design "different". Even if the act does pass, Pruitt doesn't foresee an end to the counterfeit craze.
"Often times, the thing being counterfeited is made by the same manufacturer," said Pruitt. "Those operations will still go on, you can't stop that."
Washington Seeks to Sink Fashion Pirates
Lindsay Sammon Mon Apr 10, 5:25 PM ET
Fashion Wire Daily - New York - We've all done it. Whether we made the purchase or not, we've all at least thought about putting our wallets above our conscience and investing in a good, quality, knockoff.
It seems harmless, but according to the United States Customs and Border Protection, American businesses lose between $200-$250 billion a year in valid sales due to the production of counterfeited merchandise. Though most nations protect fashion designs under property protection laws, the United States currently does not award copyrights to apparel because the bestower of patents - who clearly missed McQueen's fall 2006 giant gauze-wrapped deer antler headdress - deems clothing "useful articles," not works of art.
While logos and names can be trademarked and protected - earlier this month Seven For All Mankind was awarded $4 million in damages from a trademark-counterfeiting suit - specific designs are unprotected. Looking to amend the status quo is Congressman Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, who has recently approached the House Committee on the Judiciary with the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. The proposal moves to amend the Copyright Act to provide legal protection for fashion designs for a period of three years.
This anti-piracy act has support from the Council of Fashion Designers of America among other industry big shots, but some insiders consider it unrealistic. And with the intangibility that is inherent in a clothing design, figuring out the specifics could result in years of deliberation before the act passes.
"I think the probability of this getting passed is less than 50%," said Steve Pruitt, Senior Consultant for Blacks Retail Analysis, a service for trend forecasting, market research, and retail information in the fine jewelry and apparel markets. "This is a hard set of rules to establish. It's not like software or a book, or a piece of music with distinct characteristics. Where are the lines going to be drawn?"
Pruitt, who has been involved in the industry for over 30 years, sees the act has as addressing a justifiable concern, but an idea that is "frivolous" at best.
It is easy to trademark a fabric or name of a collection, but when it comes to the length of a sleeve, or the silhouette of a dress, there are more gray areas. To truly make this legit, legislation will have to cover garments down to the inch.
"As soon as you establish those laws," said Pruitt, "you establish a criteria that says 'you can't do anything aside from this.'"
Yet through his experience with the fine jewelry industry as well, which does protect designs, Pruitt has seen the ways in which counterfeiters can find loopholes - add a little, take away a little - to make the design "different". Even if the act does pass, Pruitt doesn't foresee an end to the counterfeit craze.
"Often times, the thing being counterfeited is made by the same manufacturer," said Pruitt. "Those operations will still go on, you can't stop that."
jun3machina
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,194
- Reaction score
- 0
so is it even worth trademarking a name?
softgrey
flaunt the imperfection
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 52,891
- Reaction score
- 312
names are different than designs and are much easier to claim ownership of...
excluding certain words or phrases that are just too common...
but -the basic answer is yes...it is certainly a good idea to trademark/copyright a name
excluding certain words or phrases that are just too common...
but -the basic answer is yes...it is certainly a good idea to trademark/copyright a name
Can fashion be copyrighted? The debate over knock-offs
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
By Ben Winograd and Cheryl Lu-Lien, The Wall Street Journal
As fashion models hit New York runways this week, they won't just be showing off spring 2007 designs aimed at high-end retailers. They'll also be providing a wealth of ideas for apparel manufacturers that copy runway looks -- usually with less-expensive fabrics, in foreign assembly plants -- for purchase by the masses.
Hoping to change that by following Europe's lead, prominent fashion designers in the U.S. are pushing for federal legislation that would offer three years of copyright-like protection for designs ranging from dresses and shoes to belts and eyeglass frames. Though the odds of passage in the current Congress appear slim, the bill has ignited a fierce debate over how the creative process works in the women's fashion industry, which rang up retail sales of $101 billion in 2005.
The central question is whether fashion design is an art worthy of protection or a craft whose practitioners can and should freely copy one another. In an industry where many designers come out with similar looks each season -- and where inspiration is said to be "in the air" -- designers and the thriving knockoff industry are hotly debating the issue.
Another key question: whether knockoffs, somewhat counterintuitively, actually benefit the industry as a whole. Copying, some argue, propels the fashion cycle forward by creating popular trends that spur designers to move on to the next big idea. In what they dub the "piracy paradox," law professors Kal Raustiala of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Christopher Sprigman of the University of Virginia argue that copying makes trends saturate the market quickly, driving the fashion cognoscenti to search out newer looks. "If copying were illegal, the fashion cycle would occur very slowly, if at all," they write in an article to be published in the Virginia Law Review. While they concede copying can harm individual designers, they say Congress should protect industries only when piracy stymies -- rather than encourages -- innovation.
Joel Paris, who offers some 2,000 handbag styles resembling designer models on his Anyknockoff.com Web site and clearly benefits from others' design inspirations, maintains that knockoffs can boost a design house's profile. "Let's say Versace does a pair of parachute pants. Then three months later, some other designers do versions of parachute pants, and a year later you go to Costco or Target and you see parachute pants there," he says. "Everybody's going to know that it was Versace that kicked off the trend. It's great for the high-end fashion designer."
Taking a different tack, Allen Schwartz, founder and design director of the label A.B.S. by Allen Schwartz, says he makes affordable knockoffs of red-carpet and runway looks to serve average consumers who can't afford high-fashion designs. For example, Mr. Schwartz is selling a $396 white strapless chiffon gown inspired by a $6,700 Alberta Ferretti gown worn by Debra Messing at the Emmy Awards. He's also introducing a $385 purple satin and chiffon version of a silk dress Evangeline Lilly wore to the Emmys. The original was designed by Versace, which says its price is available upon request.
"My job is to bring trends to the consumer at a fair market price," says Mr. Schwartz. "Few people can spend $4,000 on a dress."
But fashion designers -- who invest time and money drawing sketches, ordering samples and making adjustments -- say such arguments ring hollow. Designer Catherine Malandrino, who says she has seen almost identical versions of her blouses and sweaters in such stores as H&M and Esprit, maintains that copying isn't the only way to bring fashion to the masses. "If you're creative, you can design original designs that are affordable," she says. "You don't have to knock off what other people are creating."
Designer Tracy Reese, whose dresses sell for several hundred dollars, says she recently saw a dress from her Spring 2003 collection knocked off by Eci New York, a sportswear brand that sells in such stores as Macy's and Nordstrom. The $164 dress by Eci featured both a similar pattern and silhouette, Ms. Reese says. "My first thought was, 'Can I sue them for this?'"
At the moment, probably not. Currently, federal trademark law protects against infringement of registered logos, brand names and distinctive patterns, like Burberry plaid. Counterfeiting, in which bags, sunglasses and other fashion items are fraudulently stamped with the designer's name, is outlawed.
But when it comes to the basic cut of a dress or shape of a purse, manufacturers are generally free to copy -- or "reference," as many put it -- any style they want. Fashion design has historically fallen outside the scope of copyright protection because it was considered a craft, not an art, dating back to a time when clothing served to simply cover the body, says Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who runs a blog on counterfeit fashion. Today, "fabric is a means of expression, just like pen or ink," she says.
Under the proposal, designers for the first time could register clothing designs with the U.S. Copyright Office. Registrations would cover the overall appearance of the item in question, barring even those made with inferior fabrics. But designers couldn't protect commonplace designs already in the public domain, like jeans, T-shirts, wrap dresses or trench coats, or anything before the law was passed, such as styles from previous seasons.
If the designer believes another person infringed his copyright, he could sue those who sell or manufacture the design in federal court. Those found guilty would face fines of 250,000 or $5 a copy, whichever is greater.
In other fields, copyright law bars duplicates found to be "substantially similar" to originals. But critics say applying that standard to fashion design would be difficult, and some fear the bill would stifle innovation because designers would constantly worry about being sued. "I don't know how they're going to police this," says Mr. Schwartz of ABS, whose knockoff gowns could be a prime target if the law passes. "This could really damage the creative part of the business if they start putting restrictions on people."
"It's going to be crazy -- there are going to be a lot of lawsuits flying around that have no merit," says Steven Feinstein, president of Eci. He says his company designed the kimono-like dress that upset Tracy Reese after hearing that Japanese-style pieces would be popular this past spring.
The proposed U.S. law would be more modest than the protections offered in Europe. In one famous dispute, Yves Saint Laurent successfully sued Polo Ralph Lauren under a French law in 1994 for copying his $15,000 tuxedo dress. The European Union now grants three years' protection to original fashion designs and allows creators to apply for 25-year extensions. Even so, knockoffs are a thriving business in Europe where purveyors of fast fashion as H&M, Zara and Top Shop freely adapt recent designs from the runway to make inexpensive versions.
In addition to established names, the U.S. bill's supporters say that copying hurts young designers in particular. One example is Jennifer Baum Lagdameo, who runs the handbag label Ananas from the basement of her home outside Washington. For fall 2004, she designed a leather handbag with coconut-shell rings -- dubbed the "Furoshiki" -- inspired by the shape of a traditional cloth used to wrap gifts in Japan, where she once lived. The bag was once her best-selling model, but she says numerous retailers canceled orders after several clothing labels produced similar designs that sold for between 10 percent and 50 percent of her $285 price.
As it is, even designers can have difficulty discerning their originals from the copies. Evening-wear designer Carmen Marc Valvo recalls recently meeting a fan who was wearing a chocolate-brown, halter-necked cocktail dress he initially thought was his. "She came up to me and said, 'Oh my god, I love your designs,'" he says. "When I took a closer look, I said, 'Wait a minute, there's something different about this dress -- it has a different back!'"
Still, Mr. Valvo says he's been copied so much he now shrugs it off when he sees styles that imitate his work. He finds the idea of legislation "insane," he says. "Fashion is more evolutionary than revolutionary -- you're always inspired by something else. Besides, I don't think anyone copying me would be able to do it the same way."
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
By Ben Winograd and Cheryl Lu-Lien, The Wall Street Journal
As fashion models hit New York runways this week, they won't just be showing off spring 2007 designs aimed at high-end retailers. They'll also be providing a wealth of ideas for apparel manufacturers that copy runway looks -- usually with less-expensive fabrics, in foreign assembly plants -- for purchase by the masses.
Hoping to change that by following Europe's lead, prominent fashion designers in the U.S. are pushing for federal legislation that would offer three years of copyright-like protection for designs ranging from dresses and shoes to belts and eyeglass frames. Though the odds of passage in the current Congress appear slim, the bill has ignited a fierce debate over how the creative process works in the women's fashion industry, which rang up retail sales of $101 billion in 2005.
The central question is whether fashion design is an art worthy of protection or a craft whose practitioners can and should freely copy one another. In an industry where many designers come out with similar looks each season -- and where inspiration is said to be "in the air" -- designers and the thriving knockoff industry are hotly debating the issue.
Another key question: whether knockoffs, somewhat counterintuitively, actually benefit the industry as a whole. Copying, some argue, propels the fashion cycle forward by creating popular trends that spur designers to move on to the next big idea. In what they dub the "piracy paradox," law professors Kal Raustiala of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Christopher Sprigman of the University of Virginia argue that copying makes trends saturate the market quickly, driving the fashion cognoscenti to search out newer looks. "If copying were illegal, the fashion cycle would occur very slowly, if at all," they write in an article to be published in the Virginia Law Review. While they concede copying can harm individual designers, they say Congress should protect industries only when piracy stymies -- rather than encourages -- innovation.
Joel Paris, who offers some 2,000 handbag styles resembling designer models on his Anyknockoff.com Web site and clearly benefits from others' design inspirations, maintains that knockoffs can boost a design house's profile. "Let's say Versace does a pair of parachute pants. Then three months later, some other designers do versions of parachute pants, and a year later you go to Costco or Target and you see parachute pants there," he says. "Everybody's going to know that it was Versace that kicked off the trend. It's great for the high-end fashion designer."
Taking a different tack, Allen Schwartz, founder and design director of the label A.B.S. by Allen Schwartz, says he makes affordable knockoffs of red-carpet and runway looks to serve average consumers who can't afford high-fashion designs. For example, Mr. Schwartz is selling a $396 white strapless chiffon gown inspired by a $6,700 Alberta Ferretti gown worn by Debra Messing at the Emmy Awards. He's also introducing a $385 purple satin and chiffon version of a silk dress Evangeline Lilly wore to the Emmys. The original was designed by Versace, which says its price is available upon request.
"My job is to bring trends to the consumer at a fair market price," says Mr. Schwartz. "Few people can spend $4,000 on a dress."
But fashion designers -- who invest time and money drawing sketches, ordering samples and making adjustments -- say such arguments ring hollow. Designer Catherine Malandrino, who says she has seen almost identical versions of her blouses and sweaters in such stores as H&M and Esprit, maintains that copying isn't the only way to bring fashion to the masses. "If you're creative, you can design original designs that are affordable," she says. "You don't have to knock off what other people are creating."
Designer Tracy Reese, whose dresses sell for several hundred dollars, says she recently saw a dress from her Spring 2003 collection knocked off by Eci New York, a sportswear brand that sells in such stores as Macy's and Nordstrom. The $164 dress by Eci featured both a similar pattern and silhouette, Ms. Reese says. "My first thought was, 'Can I sue them for this?'"
At the moment, probably not. Currently, federal trademark law protects against infringement of registered logos, brand names and distinctive patterns, like Burberry plaid. Counterfeiting, in which bags, sunglasses and other fashion items are fraudulently stamped with the designer's name, is outlawed.
But when it comes to the basic cut of a dress or shape of a purse, manufacturers are generally free to copy -- or "reference," as many put it -- any style they want. Fashion design has historically fallen outside the scope of copyright protection because it was considered a craft, not an art, dating back to a time when clothing served to simply cover the body, says Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who runs a blog on counterfeit fashion. Today, "fabric is a means of expression, just like pen or ink," she says.
Under the proposal, designers for the first time could register clothing designs with the U.S. Copyright Office. Registrations would cover the overall appearance of the item in question, barring even those made with inferior fabrics. But designers couldn't protect commonplace designs already in the public domain, like jeans, T-shirts, wrap dresses or trench coats, or anything before the law was passed, such as styles from previous seasons.
If the designer believes another person infringed his copyright, he could sue those who sell or manufacture the design in federal court. Those found guilty would face fines of 250,000 or $5 a copy, whichever is greater.
In other fields, copyright law bars duplicates found to be "substantially similar" to originals. But critics say applying that standard to fashion design would be difficult, and some fear the bill would stifle innovation because designers would constantly worry about being sued. "I don't know how they're going to police this," says Mr. Schwartz of ABS, whose knockoff gowns could be a prime target if the law passes. "This could really damage the creative part of the business if they start putting restrictions on people."
"It's going to be crazy -- there are going to be a lot of lawsuits flying around that have no merit," says Steven Feinstein, president of Eci. He says his company designed the kimono-like dress that upset Tracy Reese after hearing that Japanese-style pieces would be popular this past spring.
The proposed U.S. law would be more modest than the protections offered in Europe. In one famous dispute, Yves Saint Laurent successfully sued Polo Ralph Lauren under a French law in 1994 for copying his $15,000 tuxedo dress. The European Union now grants three years' protection to original fashion designs and allows creators to apply for 25-year extensions. Even so, knockoffs are a thriving business in Europe where purveyors of fast fashion as H&M, Zara and Top Shop freely adapt recent designs from the runway to make inexpensive versions.
In addition to established names, the U.S. bill's supporters say that copying hurts young designers in particular. One example is Jennifer Baum Lagdameo, who runs the handbag label Ananas from the basement of her home outside Washington. For fall 2004, she designed a leather handbag with coconut-shell rings -- dubbed the "Furoshiki" -- inspired by the shape of a traditional cloth used to wrap gifts in Japan, where she once lived. The bag was once her best-selling model, but she says numerous retailers canceled orders after several clothing labels produced similar designs that sold for between 10 percent and 50 percent of her $285 price.
As it is, even designers can have difficulty discerning their originals from the copies. Evening-wear designer Carmen Marc Valvo recalls recently meeting a fan who was wearing a chocolate-brown, halter-necked cocktail dress he initially thought was his. "She came up to me and said, 'Oh my god, I love your designs,'" he says. "When I took a closer look, I said, 'Wait a minute, there's something different about this dress -- it has a different back!'"
Still, Mr. Valvo says he's been copied so much he now shrugs it off when he sees styles that imitate his work. He finds the idea of legislation "insane," he says. "Fashion is more evolutionary than revolutionary -- you're always inspired by something else. Besides, I don't think anyone copying me would be able to do it the same way."
