You must be a logged in user to report a bad post!
Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted By |
Message |
baghag
:P
Member since 5/05 10278 total posts
Name:
|
Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Source
O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War
By ERIC WILSON Published: March 30, 2006 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.
Skip to next paragraph Lars Klove for The New York Times LOOK-ALIKES: A bag by Bottega Veneta, above, sells for $1,680 at Bergdorf Goodman, while the Urban Outfitters version, top, is $48.
Forum: Fashion and Style
Firstview; Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times THE ORIGINALS: A Zac Posen style, left, selling for over $1,000. (A copy is $169.99.) Right, a $1,500 Narciso Rodriguez. (Copy sells for $199.) "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."
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.
Designers say the high price of fashion is justified by the time and effort they spend researching fabrics, ideas and techniques. In their view it is unfair for people like Mr. Schwartz to profit from their work without a similar investment.
"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.")
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.
In 2002 the European Union adopted a more uniform regulation protecting designers from member countries. Mr. Coblence said the impetus for lobbying Congress now came from meetings with French and Italian designers who wanted similar standards applied to their work in the United States. He took the idea to the fashion design council, which readily signed on.
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."
|
Posted 3/30/06 8:51 AM |
|
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
JenniferEver
The Disney Lady
Member since 5/05 18163 total posts
Name: Jennifer
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
As for me, I won't buy a "fake" like a chinatown prada or something. I also don't really like "knockoffs" in general, if something is meant to look almost exactly like a designer version. Those designers worked hard to get where they are, and then to copy them exactly is not fair. On the other hand, so much of fashion is "inspired" by other fashion, and the only way I can wear the latest styles is if I buy them from somewhere less expensive. I really believe in the right of artists to have a "copyright" on their work (there was an article in the times in the fall about directors having their plays copied!!!), but on the other hand, when I go into macy's and buy something at Jones NY, I'm definitely not taking away from Behnaz sarapfour, because there's NO way I would ever be able to afford the designer version, and those who can afford it, probably won't be going to Macy's to shop for their clothes.
I don't have a problem with the splurge vs. steal column. It's usually not a direct knockoff. There are trends in fashion, so you're going to see a lot of designers doing the same thing. It's not necessarily a copy.
|
Posted 3/30/06 9:32 AM |
|
|
JenniferEver
The Disney Lady
Member since 5/05 18163 total posts
Name: Jennifer
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
. sorry psoted twice
Message edited 3/30/2006 9:35:01 AM.
|
Posted 3/30/06 9:33 AM |
|
|
baghag
:P
Member since 5/05 10278 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted by marymoon
As for me, I won't buy a "fake" like a chinatown prada or something. I also don't really like "knockoffs" in general, if something is meant to look almost exactly like a designer version. Those designers worked hard to get where they are, and then to copy them exactly is not fair. On the other hand, so much of fashion is "inspired" by other fashion, and the only way I can wear the latest styles is if I buy them from somewhere less expensive. I really believe in the right of artists to have a "copyright" on their work (there was an article in the times in the fall about directors having their plays copied!!!), but on the other hand, when I go into macy's and buy something at Jones NY, I'm definitely not taking away from Behnaz sarapfour, because there's NO way I would ever be able to afford the designer version, and those who can afford it, probably won't be going to Macy's to shop for their clothes.
I don't have a problem with the splurge vs. steal column. It's usually not a direct knockoff. There are trends in fashion, so you're going to see a lot of designers doing the same thing. It's not necessarily a copy.
I agree with you. If I can't afford an Hermes bag, I don't think it is wrong to buy a Coach with a similar shape.
ETA: I'd like to hear DebG's thoughts.
Message edited 3/30/2006 9:39:35 AM.
|
Posted 3/30/06 9:39 AM |
|
|
JenniferEver
The Disney Lady
Member since 5/05 18163 total posts
Name: Jennifer
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
I would buy a coach with a similar shape, but I wouldnt buy a fake Hermes or a "Bermes"..lol
|
Posted 3/30/06 9:42 AM |
|
|
dpli
Daylight savings :)
Member since 5/05 13973 total posts
Name: D
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Ok, maybe this is a rationalization, but does a fashion designer really believe that someone who will buy a $1,565 silk trench coat is going to go for the $159 from Jones New York version? I think they designer and the manufacturer are marketing to 2 completely different populations.
If anything, that column in the magazine would make me learn about a designer I know nothing about, since I would never shop in places that carry their designs since they are too expensive for me. So, in a way, they are getting more name recognition from people who are unaware of them.
Message edited 3/30/2006 10:40:12 AM.
|
Posted 3/30/06 10:39 AM |
|
|
baghag
:P
Member since 5/05 10278 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Bump for DebG
|
Posted 3/30/06 2:56 PM |
|
|
Snozberry
I might steal your diamonds
Member since 2/06 4680 total posts
Name: Melissa
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted by dpli
Ok, maybe this is a rationalization, but does a fashion designer really believe that someone who will buy a $1,565 silk trench coat is going to go for the $159 from Jones New York version? I think they designer and the manufacturer are marketing to 2 completely different populations.
If anything, that column in the magazine would make me learn about a designer I know nothing about, since I would never shop in places that carry their designs since they are too expensive for me. So, in a way, they are getting more name recognition from people who are unaware of them.
I am in complete agreement.
|
Posted 3/30/06 2:57 PM |
|
|
DebG
Pick a cause & stand up for it
Member since 5/05 18602 total posts
Name: The cure IS worse!
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted by baghag
Bump for DebG
I just skimmed through this, I have to go back to work now though so I will try to respond when I get back there.
|
Posted 3/30/06 2:59 PM |
|
|
Tany
Becoming a different woman
Member since 5/05 24460 total posts
Name: Tania
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
well If I can't afford the real hermes bag or any other designer bag, why can I then buy something that looks similar?
I don't see anything wrong with that, I actually love that section because it gives the people that really can't afford it, another alternative.
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:05 PM |
|
|
baghag
:P
Member since 5/05 10278 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Lucky has a similar section and sometimes even the "budget" versions are out of my price range!
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:07 PM |
|
|
Tany
Becoming a different woman
Member since 5/05 24460 total posts
Name: Tania
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
yeah, i know.
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:08 PM |
|
|
dpli
Daylight savings :)
Member since 5/05 13973 total posts
Name: D
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted by baghag
Lucky has a similar section and sometimes even the "budget" versions are out of my price range!
Same here - I was thinking "hmmm, Jones New York is actually on the high end of what I buy..."
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:20 PM |
|
|
Summer05
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 2320 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
Posted by dpli
Ok, maybe this is a rationalization, but does a fashion designer really believe that someone who will buy a $1,565 silk trench coat is going to go for the $159 from Jones New York version? I think they designer and the manufacturer are marketing to 2 completely different populations.
If anything, that column in the magazine would make me learn about a designer I know nothing about, since I would never shop in places that carry their designs since they are too expensive for me. So, in a way, they are getting more name recognition from people who are unaware of them.
I agree 100%
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:21 PM |
|
|
DebG
Pick a cause & stand up for it
Member since 5/05 18602 total posts
Name: The cure IS worse!
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
I have a few thoughts
"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."
I see what they are TRYING to lobby for...but its not the same. Music, Film and other creative arts are lobbying to stop people from copying their exact song/film/beat ect. This seems more like sampleing to me where party b is taking a concept from part A but changing a thing or two about it.
When relating this article to my stance on music it made me realize this is more about Queen and David Bowie going after Vanilla Ice for the lack of credit then Metallica suing Napster type of thing.
Perhaps designers should not be looking to stop this all together but should be looking towards getting "credited" for their concept. Much like a musician who samples should give a % of the profit to the original musician?
This is just my initial thoughts. I certainly would like to consider this and research some more.
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:28 PM |
|
|
baghag
:P
Member since 5/05 10278 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
I wonder if the credit for inspiration woud accomplish anything? I think it is a good gesture to acknowledge the source of the idea, but it would be just that- a gesture. I don't think it would get people to spend money that they don't have.
The funny thing is- most of the time, the high end fashion companies don't even credit eachother for whatever copying they do. Goyard, LV and Gucci all had a similar shaped bag (the speedy aka doctor bag), and no one batted an eye. But when Dooney & Burke came copied the LV white and multi color line, all hell broke loose. LV actually sued D&B. I think part of the reason was that D&B is a lot less expensive than LV, and they saw a lot of customers drifting.
|
Posted 3/30/06 3:57 PM |
|
|
MissJones
I need a nap!
Member since 5/05 22134 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Clothes under copyright? Another knockoff debate.
OH please!!! Believe me, the $150 knockoff or trendy is NOT going to put Louis Vuitton out of business. Look at cars. Designers get inspiration from one another and follow one another to keep up. And as someone mentioned above, the person who CAN afford the $2,000 scarf is NOT going to buy the $50 version. It isn't like plagarism when someone is TRYING to pass off another's work as his or her own. It's more like keeping up the the Jones'. I'm sure LV and YSL aren't hurting from the H & M versions appearing in stores. It's not like a majority of those buying H&M's version would be buying the LV or YSL versions if the H&M version wasn't on the shelf.
|
Posted 3/30/06 6:15 PM |
|
|
Currently 606310 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|