Originally posted by zamb
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Randomness
Collapse
X
-
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde
StyleZeitgeist Magazine
-
-
Originally posted by Faust View PostFucking awesome, Zam - you just gave me material for my class. I devote one class to copying in fashion (you should come next time!). This is just brilliant.
thought this to be very funny...............
Frontier Justice: Anna Sui takes aim at Forever 21
Watch out, Forever 21. There's a new sheriff in town.
Anna Sui, one of many designers lining up to accuse the fast fashion chain of copyright infringement (complaint here), has moved the fight onto her own territory -- creativity. Guests at her Spring 2008 runway show received parchment-colored T-shirts with "Wanted" posters depicting Forever 21 founders Don and Jin Chang, a.k.a. "Don Cassidy and the Sundance Jin."
Anna Sui also took the opportunity to remind the Bible-quoting defendants, who print the phrase "John 3:16" on their shopping bags, that Christianity actually comes with its own legal code.
But I'd like to think that Anna took particular pleasure in drawing mustaches on her alleged copyists. Waiting for the legal system to respond is all well and good, particularly when there's a strong cause of action and a notorious wrongdoer on the stand. In the meantime, a bit of humor hits the mark.
Nice shooting, Ms. Sui.“You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
.................................................. .......................
Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock
Comment
-
-
these articles and sites about design ripoffs are downright scary. Everything is fair game to be ripped off in terms of design it seems. One can only do so much to protect their intellectual property through copyright and patents but for cut, construction etc.... you're left out in the cold.
The sad thing is, articles like this really don't seem to prevent any of this from happening. DvF, Marc and others haven't suffered an inkling from articles like this and pieces that sell well through them will continue to do so and the original designers get royally screwed. Where they made hundreds or thousands from their original design, a big company steals it and makes hundreds OF thousands.
Nice to know that europe has design protection laws in place... how come such laws haven't been pushed in the US? Or have they without success?
Faust, that would be a very interesting lecture of yours to sit in on!www.AlbertHuangMD.com - Digital Portfolio Of Projects & Designs
Merz (5/22/09):"i'm a firm believer that the ultimate prevailing logic in design is 'does shit look sick as fuck' "
Comment
-
-
I'm sure the obvious reason for not doing Carol rip-offs is that it wouldn't be a very big market. Also have to remember that the high street rips of high end menswear to a much lesser extent, as the average guy probably wouldn't wear most of it anyway.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Chinorlz View PostNice to know that europe has design protection laws in place... how come such laws haven't been pushed in the US? Or have they without success?
Current CFDA-supported legislation has cleverly redefined the terms in an attempt to circumvent judicial precedent. They say that the most basic "Clothing" is the utility. Original "Fashion Designs" represent the creative. But you can probably already see a few problems with such a distinction. And because another major trade group opposes the bill, among other things, the bill has continually stalled in committee.
Patent protection is unavailable, basically, because there is always an originality requirement. To be patented, a design can't be based on previous design. Since the human body hasn't changed, and probably won't for a while, 99.9999% of clothing will be based on previous works.Last edited by Test; 05-18-2009, 03:51 AM.
Comment
-
-
I'm sure there have been many similar patterns in shirts etc."AVANT GUARDE HIGHEST FASHION. NOW NOW this is it people, these are the brands no one fucking knows and people are like WTF. they do everything by hand in their freaking secret basement and shit."
STYLEZEITGEIST MAGAZINE | BLOG
Comment
-
-
Albert, Test covered it well (Test, I will answer your PM later). Basically, the US law states that clothing carries utilitarian function and therefore cannot be copyrighted. The reason LVs of the world are protected is because the logos are IP. Also what's called "a discernible pattern" is protected, such as the Burberry check (even though it's not a logo).
My own position is that this bill should not be passed and no copryights should be granted. As harsh as it may sound to designers, I think this law will give unprecedented power to the DvFs of this world and will stifle creativity. Also, I think there is an element of unpredictability in any law - say this law passes and Marc Jacobs's layers find a loophole and are able to copyright pinstripe pants tomorrow. Sounds farfetched, but if you look at the examples from other industries, not impossible. If Monsanto could patent basmati rice, I am not ruling anything out...Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde
StyleZeitgeist Magazine
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mike lowrey View PostI'm sure there have been many similar patterns in shirts etc.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Faust View PostMy own position is that this bill should not be passed and no copryights should be granted. As harsh as it may sound to designers, I think this law will give unprecedented power to the DvFs of this world and will stifle creativity.
But it's funny you bring this up. A major clothing trade group, The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), - no relation to Dov Charney - refuses to support the bill until CFDA clears up exactly what they mean by "original design" because they're afraid of a massive influx of lawsuits against them.
Comment
-
-
Thanks Test and Faust for all that information. It's very interesting to read about and to try to understand it a bit more.
Merz, I agree that one of the "easiest" ways to avoid being ripped off is to maintain a high quality, technically difficult construction that is unavoidably laborious.
One can see the lack of laws here in the US as motivation to push things forward and keep creating; staying one step ahead of the competition. That's probably the best way to stay positive about it :)www.AlbertHuangMD.com - Digital Portfolio Of Projects & Designs
Merz (5/22/09):"i'm a firm believer that the ultimate prevailing logic in design is 'does shit look sick as fuck' "
Comment
-
-
Agree with Faust.
The thing with patent/copyright laws is that they usually become a tool for the strong against the weak. So for me the cons outweigh the pros.
Intellectual property protection in general has gone way too far and is hampering development and creativity.
Not to say that blatant copying is ok. Especially not when done by the likes of DvF or by multinational chains.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Test View Post...refuses to support the bill until CFDA clears up exactly what they mean by "original design"..."AVANT GUARDE HIGHEST FASHION. NOW NOW this is it people, these are the brands no one fucking knows and people are like WTF. they do everything by hand in their freaking secret basement and shit."
STYLEZEITGEIST MAGAZINE | BLOG
Comment
-
-
I HATE overeating. There is just no reason for it.Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde
StyleZeitgeist Magazine
Comment
-
Comment