Is Copying Really a Part of the Creative Process?

[reborn]

Given the Augusta & CCP issue, thought this might contribute to the discussion and minimize derailing the CCP thread:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E6DB133DF93AA35757C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Is Copying Really a Part of the Creative Process?
By CATHY HORYN
Published: April 9, 2002
There can be no doubt that Nicolas Ghesquiere, the Balenciaga star who is often hailed for his originality, copied the work of a little-known designer from San Francisco named Kaisik Wong. Not only does a Balenciaga patchwork vest from the spring collection resemble one that Mr. Wong designed in 1973 -- right down to the eccentric shape of the patches and the placement of decorative tassels -- but in an interview last week from Paris, Mr. Ghesquiere admitted that he had copied the garment. I did it -- yes, he said.

[Faust]

Here is another good article that I use in my classroom.

It is a matter of ethics in the end, more so in the United States (in Europe the laws are different - garment design can be copyrighted, not just logo). What stinks is that designers scream foul when high street copies them, but do the same thing themselves.

[reborn]

Here is another good article that I use in my classroom.

It is a matter of ethics in the end, more so in the United States (in Europe the laws are different - garment design can be copyrighted, not just logo). What stinks is that designers scream foul when high street copies them, but do the same thing themselves.

Thanks. I hadn't read that one before.

[mass]

Here is another good article that I use in my classroom.

that says it all about the current state/generation of fashion, or any creative industry really--when creators are looking for inspiration within their respective mediums, that was first inspired by something else within it's respective medium etc.

[Faust]

Yep, and this article was published six years ago when things were hotter than hot.

[Test]

I'd like to have some romantic notion about fashion copying. That it's like storytelling or music - archetypes passed down from the ages and subtly shifted by each generation, the occasional unique element added by that generation's unique experiences. But reading about how designers react being caught is disgusting.

Perhaps its because it's not that I view originality as the key to a creation. As I wrote above, most creations are the result of history, experience, and exposure to any set of ideas and culture. It's that I believe attribution is vital. Use the design, fine. Use it in your collection. Base the entire collection around it. But give credit where it's due. To take a design and claim it as your own just feels flat out cowardly.

I suppose the idea behind attribution, even with flat out copying, is that even though you're taking it you're telling me you have a distinct eye that I should follow. Hell, you're even making it available for me to have again. As long as you have other original designs, you won't be disgraced and become a Buyer for some boutique.

[Chinorlz]

well put Test. Your second paragraph is spot on.

The thing is, the purchasing populous of Balenciaga etc don't know or don't give a rats ass even when Ghesquire was outed on that bullshit. Without repercussions other than some people here and there naysaying it, there is no reason for them or anyone to change.

I say fine the shit out of them like they did with Jacobs and his payola for fashion week prime locations... although in that instance it was but a pittance.

[kira]

dont have time to read the articles right not...

but in regards to copying answering the question of the thread directly... it is a way to train one's eye to see things. it is the first thing that i learned how to do in Drawing I, in both high school and undergrad. have more thoughts but want to read more first...

[casem]

In a general sense, yes copying is a necessary part of the creative process. Nothing comes out of thin air, the best we humans can do is recombine experiences and ideas that came before in hopes of creating something with a semblance of originality. There's an old episode of Star Trek floating around in my head I wish I could quote better that sums up how I feel. Basically Spok learns human creatviity and is mystified to discover that it only involves combing what's already there (is that--- all-there-is capt. kirk?).

I am dubious of overly faithful copies as with the Balenciaga case. Mostly because it smacks of laziness and when paying high designer prices one would hope the designer has put a little more thought into the work.

[Test]

Kira: I don't think any of us dispute that assertion, the issue is when larger designers just take a design and claim it as their own.

The thing is, the purchasing populous of Balenciaga etc don't know or don't give a rats ass even when Ghesquire was outed on that bullshit. Without repercussions other than some people here and there naysaying it, there is no reason for them or anyone to change.

I say fine the shit out of them like they did with Jacobs and his payola for fashion week prime locations...

I agree, it won't really matter until the designer's followers actually give a damn. As with brands that have been outed for sweatshop labor, it won't really matter as long as the product is what they want.

There is currently legislation on the table supported and consulted by the CFDA to extend American copyright protection to fashion design. It proposes, in short, 3 years of protection after Registering the design with a punishment of $250,000 or $5 per copy. If you follow the link, there is the full text of the bill along with testimony before the US House of Representatives by Narciso Rodriguez, William Delahunt, Jeffrey Banks, and Susan Scafidi. I've heard the main impetus here is designers seeking protection against fast fashion chains like H&M, Zara, F21, Primark, etc. As Faust implied, Europeans have copyright and patent protection for clothing.

(Begin Legal Dork Time)
The issue with clothing is called Separability. To be copyrightable, the utility and artistic nature of a work must be separable from each other. Thus an original drawing put onto a shirt could be copyrighted - but the idea/shape of shirt as an article of clothing could not be included in the protection. This is because copyright protects the creative - patent protects the utilitarian/industrial. 99% of cases hold clothing's utility can't be separated from its artistic purposes - but this is a case-by-case analysis. Who knows if the CFDA bill will pass. The reason designers pass on patents is that it is a long, expensive, and often ineffective process.
(/Legal Dork)

[reborn]

Is it about copying or about authenticity instead of orginality? I think you can copy someone and still be authentic (as far as having an identity and modus operandi as a designer). However I don't think you can copy someone and still be original (or at least claim to be original).

I think the last season of Project Runway had great examples of this issue: Kenely and the painted fabric...Her claims to be only one handpainting fabric was laughable. Still, her dress was "authentically" Kenley. Just something to kick around.

[Test]

^Yes, a designer can take someone's piece and still be true to their own vision. I still believe in attribution in all cases.

I hesitate to use the word "authentic" as it creates a semantic issue: simply because a designer copies without credit and shows it within a collection doesn't mean they aren't being true to their vision. If I'm a designer strongly influenced by Julius and V-A and I recreate one of their pieces, that still reflects what I do, what I want people to see/wear, and how I want them to perceive the collection. However I'd say there is absolutely no authenticity there.

[reborn]

^Yes, a designer can take someone's piece and still be true to their own vision. I still believe in attribution in all cases.

I hesitate to use the word "authentic" as it creates a semantic issue: simply because a designer copies without credit and shows it within a collection doesn't mean they aren't being true to their vision. If I'm a designer strongly influenced by Julius and V-A and I recreate one of their pieces, that still reflects what I do, what I want people to see/wear, and how I want them to perceive the collection. However I'd say there is absolutely no authenticity there.

I think we are saying the same thing:

You can be authentic and still copy.
However, you cannot claim to be original while copying someone elses work.

So if you are a slave to commercial production and lining your investors pockets with profit, copy away (at least you are authentically you).

[Test]

Yes, you're right. If you are a worthless piece of crap and you stay true to that, then hell, you're being authentic.

[Faust]

dont have time to read the articles right not...

but in regards to copying answering the question of the thread directly... it is a way to train one's eye to see things. it is the first thing that i learned how to do in Drawing I, in both high school and undergrad. have more thoughts but want to read more first...

Yes, but did you pass the drawings as your own? Moreover, did you sell them?