Randomness

[Faust]

The Verdict: Whether intentional or accidental (and isn't plagiarism by mistake still plagiarism?), in the case of Mercy 2008 v DvF 2009, the resemblance is just too close for comfort. Particularly coming from a designer who’s president of a national organization with an entire site, Stop Fashion Piracy, dedicated to the principle of intellectual property and the "difference between inspiration and plagiarism." And you have to wonder what recourse DvF would take if the situation were reversed

Fucking 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.

[zamb]

Fucking 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.

if you tell me when it is, I'll definately sit in..............
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.

[lowrey]

ouch, haha

[Chinorlz]

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!

[Catfood]

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.

[Test]

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?

In the US there's a theory called "separability" in copyright. Copyright protects the creative work, patent protects the industrial. To copyright, the work's creative elements must be separable from its functional or utilitarian nature. Thus, a picture printed onto a shirt could be protected, but not the cut of the shirt. Since the very early 1900's, US courts have held clothing designs (the cut, fit, etc.) can't be separated. Thus, no copyright.

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.

[Fade to Black]

Well, I came across a pair of Supreme shorts that looks like it has that CCP "rain" pattern against black fabric. Not saying it WAS a direct rip off, but just saying...

[lowrey]

I'm sure there have been many similar patterns in shirts etc.

[Faust]

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...

[Fade to Black]

I'm sure there have been many similar patterns in shirts etc.

True, i guess it says more about me that "CCP" was the first thing I noticed after looking at those shorts...heh , too much SZ.

[Test]

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.

While I disagree almost wholeheartedly with you, I do so with recommendations to drastically alter the bill.

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.

[Chinorlz]

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 :)

[jumpoff]

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.

[lowrey]

...refuses to support the bill until CFDA clears up exactly what they mean by "original design"...

this, I feel, is the reason why copyrights in fashion are very hard to make work. I suppose exact knock-offs like the DVF one are quite a clear case (material, pattern, details all match), but when there are minor or fewer differences its impossible to rule whats a knock-off, whats inspired by and what is coincidentally similar.

[Faust]

I HATE overeating. There is just no reason for it.