|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 11 - 24 May 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008
| |
<
< | Fashion: the New IP Battleground? | >
> | Fashion, Copyrighting, and Society | | | Introduction | | |
Why does it matter? | |
<
< | Copying (designs inspired by the ones produced by The Fashion Houses, not counterfeit items) allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. Copyrighting designs may also put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose social ramifications call for an entirely different paper). Furthermore, copyrighting could stymie the careers of young or new designers who cannot afford the legal fees to copyright-check their designs or do not have enough experience to work for a House. Finally, copyrighting may stunt creativity. If certain sleeves or hemlines were exclusive to particular Houses, then other designers would be precluded from using those design techniques and elements in realizing their own works. | >
> | Copying allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry. If designs were copyrighted, the copyists would presumably pass down some, if not all, of the increased legal costs associated with licensing and checking materials for copyrights to consumers by increasing the price of clothing or by further decreasing the quality of clothing. Copyists may also cut manufacturing costs (i.e. worse labor practices) to retain their current margin of profit. Copyrighting could also stymie the endeavors of independent designers who want to create their own labels, but cannot afford the new legal fees. The lack of funds may compel them to work for an already established brand, under someone else’s concepts and styles, hindering creativity. Finally, copyrighting would make following trends more costly for designers. If certain design elements were copyrighted, then non-copyright-holders would be subject to licensing fees and would be more reluctant to use those design techniques and elements in their own works. This would further the trend of “trends ending too fast,” that the Houses frequently complain about. | | | What is being sold here? | |
<
< | Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. To be sure, a fashion trend is not House-specific. Dolce&Gabbana doesn’t own the skinny jean nor does Chloe own the trapeze top. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21. | >
> | Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21. | | | | |
<
< | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the pricetag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | >
> | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? Some differences include retail price, quality of materials, and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the creating House, proudly emblazoned on the item. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | | |
Trademark Laws | |
<
< | Currently, there exist trademark laws that protect brand names and logos. Original patterns and prints are also protected by law. Thus, the truly “original” aspects of the Houses’ production are protected already. For example, designer Tory Burch sued a number of chain stores for carrying ballerina flats with insignias too similar to hers. Likewise, designer Anna Sui sued Forever 21 for infringing on her unique prints on 26 occasions. There are more than twenty other designers who have filed similar lawsuits against Forever 21. To be sure, intentional attempts to produce counterfeit original luxury goods are prohibited by law. | >
> | Currently, there exist trademark laws that protect brand names and logos. Original patterns and prints are also protected by law. Thus, the truly “original” aspects of the Houses’ production are protected already. For example, designer Tory Burch sued a number of chain stores for carrying ballerina flats with insignias too similar to hers. Likewise, designer Anna Sui sued Forever 21 for infringing on her unique prints on 26 occasions. There are more than twenty other designers who have filed similar lawsuits against Forever 21. Such intentional attempts to produce counterfeit original luxury goods are prohibited by law. | | | So what is "ruined"? | |
<
< | What exactly was Miller talking about when she said that copying “ruins the whole thing”? Maybe she meant lower classes were not meant to look so much like her patrons who spent the money. What about all those people who get the $3,000 top instead of the $26 look-alike? Surely, they don’t want to look like the lower classes. | >
> | Manufacturers, retailers and even some intellectual property scholars insist that this copying is exactly what generates the fashion industry. Copying promotes industry by inducing current trends to become obsolete and creating demand for new ones. Those who buy the $11,000 outfits (many celebrities) will gladly do so again to keep “ahead of the fashion.” Ordinary people will see their favorite celebrities wearing the ahead-of-their-time pieces, wait (not for long) for similar designs to hit Forever 21, and perpetuate a trend. Once the trend gets played out enough, the former group will again seek out the new $11,000 “original design.” Sure, some “original designs” get leaked prematurely over the web and copies hit stores before the “originals” do, but chances are, unless the “original” is not following an already popular trend, most people wouldn’t buy the copy until they see it on TV or in magazines anyway. | | | | |
<
< | But manufacturers, retailers and even some intellectual property scholars insist that this copying is exactly what generates the fashion industry. Copying promotes industry by inducing current trends to become obsolete and creating demand for new ones. Those who buy the $11,000 outfits (many celebrities) will gladly do so again to keep “ahead of the fashion.” Ordinary people will see their favorite celebrities wearing the ahead-of-their-time pieces, wait (not for long) for similar designs to hit Forever 21, and perpetuate a trend. Once the trend gets played out enough, the former group will again seek out the new $11,000 “original design.” Sure, some “original designs” get leaked prematurely over the web and copies hit stores before the “originals” do, but chances are, unless the “original” is not following an already popular trend, most people wouldn’t buy the copy until they see it on TV or in magazines anyway. | >
> | If I think the entire industry is a scam anyway, why should I care about the copyright?
Like it or not, the fashion industry is a mainstay of American society and it will continue to grow in its current form unless there is some major intervening power. The industry is plagued with grave problems, a couple of which are: (1) women are “coerced” into accepting, even enjoying crappy clothes because they have no good quality alternatives; and (2) women’s clothing is made cheaply via sweat shops and other unethical practices. These issues are outside the scope of the copyright issue. However, refusing to address the copyright issue simply because it won’t fix the greatest problems of the industry is problematic. | | | | |
>
> | Fashion copyrighting will do nothing for the betterment of society while inevitably hurting consumers. Society would not benefit because the licensing fees that the Houses collect from the copyists (who will pass the costs onto consumers) will not go towards providing better quality clothing or providing fair wages and better working conditions. Instead, copyrighting will limit consumers’ choices because they will have to pay more for the same crappy sweatshop-made clothes. If anything, copyrighting will provide Houses with even more money to advocate their current practices.
Surely, quality and labor issues need to be addressed. Perhaps legislation that impose a grading system and a high standard for merchandisable clothing will bring the quality of women’s clothes up to par with men’s clothing and legislation that does not allow sweatshop-made clothes to be imported/sold in the U.S. will ameliorate the labor issues. But again, these are outside the scope of the copyright problem at hand. Nonetheless, ignoring the copyright problem for this reason will ultimately harm more “innocent” people (as opposed to the industry “thugs”) and may indirectly empower Houses to continue their current practices. | | | | |
<
< | Let the Market Speak
If anything is to be ruined, copyright laws would ruin the market forces currently at play. Judging by the size of the industry, there are clearly a good number of brand name sales. That is, there are people who are willing to pay the cost of bearing those unique insignias. When about 95% of sales in the American apparel industry are attributable to brand name sales even with all the much more affordable options, there is something to be said about the strength of the names. However, if copyright laws were to wipe out the copy giants and their affordable options, would the Forever 21 patrons be able and willing to turn to the Houses instead? Probably not. Instead of changing the 5% of copies sales into brand name sales, the industry will probably just lose most of the 5%. The industry will probably lose more sales when trends do not change as often and the name-seekers do not feel the need to change styles so rapidly. The copy market exists for a reason: it simultaneously generates supply for the poor and demand for the rich. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | The CFDA’s copyright endeavors seem to be shortsighted. It is trying to stretch IP laws in a direction that has traditionally shunned it and has thrived because of its absence. If its motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place or push for more stringent penalties for counterfeiting or infringing on their logos and prints. | >
> | The CFDA’s proposed copyright is harmful to society and offers no benefits. If CFDA’s motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place instead of pinching the copyists (and thereby the ordinary consumers) for a higher margin of profit. | | |
- "Copyright" here means only a struggle for control. Of course the fashion houses aren't going to kill geese that lay golden eggs: they're going to tax them. You and I may both believe that only a weak form of property right will avoid reducing the overall profitability of the garment "sector" of the economy. But copyright allows the holder to capture the benefit of whatever increase in price the "infringer's" customers would pay without reducing total revenue, even if that reduces the copyists's profitability, so long as it doesn't put them out of business. Working women, unlike high fashion's customers, care what they pay for clothes. So the Houses are trying to "monetize" their designs by forcing up the copyists' prices a little bit and keeping the rise for themselves in license fees. Lots of possible fee structures would "allow young designers to succeed," etc. These guys aren't entirely stupid, and they aren't trying to ruin the industry: they just want to make some more bucks at someone else's expense. I am as much of a copyright minimalist as the next guy, or in fact more, but I can't see why I should care about the outcome of a fight over money between the thugs who run the copyists' and the thugs who run the Houses. If you want to present this as an issue to be concerned about, you need to offer something more ponderable than the prediction of a parade of horribles none of which makes economic sense, and therefore is most unlikely to occur.
|
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 10 - 20 May 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | |
| |
>
> |
Eben’s problem with the fashion industry is two-fold: (1) women are “coerced” into accepting, even enjoying crappy clothes because they have no good quality alternatives; and (2) women’s clothing is made cheaply via sweat shops and other unethical practices. He suggested that we compel the fashion industry as a whole to produce better quality clothing for women, as it does with clothing for men and that we force the fashion industry to pay fair wages to its factory workers. While I fully support such endeavors, I feel that it is outside the scope of the copyright issue. Furthermore, although banning such a copyright would not fix the graver social problems of “thug pushing thug,” relatively poor quality of women’s clothing, or sweat shop businesses, I think that refusing to address the issue simply because it won’t fix the greatest problems is problematic.
If this is really a case of “thug pushing thug,” fashion copyrighting will do nothing for the betterment of society while inevitably hurting consumers. Society would not benefit because the licensing fees that the Houses collect from the copyists (who will pass the costs onto consumers) will not go to providing better quality clothing or providing fair wages and working conditions. Instead, copyrighting will limit consumers’ choices because they will have to pay more for the same crappy sweatshop-made clothes. Moreover, copyrighting will provide Houses with even more money to lobby for their current practices.
Surely, quality and labor issues need to be addressed. Perhaps legislation that impose a grading system and a high standard for merchandisable clothing will bring the quality of women’s clothes up to par with men’s clothing and legislation that does not allow sweatshop-made clothes to be imported/sold in the U.S. will ameliorate the labor issues. But these are outside the scope of the copyright problem at hand. Nonetheless, ignoring the copyright problem for this reason will ultimately harm more “innocent” people (as opposed to the “thugs”) and may indirectly empower Houses to continue their current practices.
-- ChristinaYoun - 20 May 2008
NOTE: I'm still in the process of revising.
-- ChristinaYoun - 20 May 2008 | | | |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 9 - 20 Apr 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Conclusion
The CFDA’s copyright endeavors seem to be shortsighted. It is trying to stretch IP laws in a direction that has traditionally shunned it and has thrived because of its absence. If its motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place or push for more stringent penalties for counterfeiting or infringing on their logos and prints. | |
>
> |
- "Copyright" here means only a struggle for control. Of course the fashion houses aren't going to kill geese that lay golden eggs: they're going to tax them. You and I may both believe that only a weak form of property right will avoid reducing the overall profitability of the garment "sector" of the economy. But copyright allows the holder to capture the benefit of whatever increase in price the "infringer's" customers would pay without reducing total revenue, even if that reduces the copyists's profitability, so long as it doesn't put them out of business. Working women, unlike high fashion's customers, care what they pay for clothes. So the Houses are trying to "monetize" their designs by forcing up the copyists' prices a little bit and keeping the rise for themselves in license fees. Lots of possible fee structures would "allow young designers to succeed," etc. These guys aren't entirely stupid, and they aren't trying to ruin the industry: they just want to make some more bucks at someone else's expense. I am as much of a copyright minimalist as the next guy, or in fact more, but I can't see why I should care about the outcome of a fight over money between the thugs who run the copyists' and the thugs who run the Houses. If you want to present this as an issue to be concerned about, you need to offer something more ponderable than the prediction of a parade of horribles none of which makes economic sense, and therefore is most unlikely to occur.
| | | | |
<
< |
Hi Christina,
Not sure where you plan to go with the paper but I thought you might want to consult this short article I read this summer. It was either in the New Yorker or The Economist. Don't remember... Anyways, the article argues that copies are actually good for the fashion industry because mass reproduction of trends "forces" fashionable women to buy new Fall, Spring, and Resort lines. They argue that fashionable women don't want to wear, say leggings or florals, once everyone begins to wear them. Stores like Forever 21 are good for higher name brands. | | | | |
<
< | Also there was this article last week in the New York Times (i admit i did not finish reading it) last week about how luxury brands are backing away from branding and moving towards more quiet and classic luxury. Something something recession fashion. The move away from logos is not exactly big news but it's still interesting. Muted luxury is an interesting form of conspicious consumption. Only those versed in the codes can read the outfit. | | | | |
<
< | Just some thoughts. Hope this helps even though I don't really know your topic. | | | | |
<
< | Thanks Thalia, I think I may have read those same articles in the New York Times. The first article you mentioned is actually what inspired this forthcoming paper, so you're right on. The webpage crashed when I was trying to edit so I didn't exactly do a good job of laying out my paper. I'll try to edit again later today so you'll actually have some substantive material to comment on. Thanks for your interest and please leave more comments! | >
> | |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 8 - 07 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055, which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | >
> | The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055, which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” But would it be wise to extend IP laws to protect fashion design? | | |
Why does it matter? | | | What is being sold here?
Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. To be sure, a fashion trend is not House-specific. Dolce&Gabbana doesn’t own the skinny jean nor does Chloe own the trapeze top. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21. | |
<
< | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the price tag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article posing as a size indicator. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | >
> | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the pricetag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | | |
Trademark Laws | | |
Let the Market Speak | |
<
< | If anything is to be ruined, copyright laws would ruin the market forces currently at play. Judging by the size of the industry, there are clearly a good number of brand name sales. That is, there are people who are willing to pay the cost of bearing those unique insignias. When about 95% of sales in the American apparel industry are attributable to brand name sales even with all the much more affordable options, there is something to be said about the strength of the names. However, if copyright laws were to wipe out the copy giants and their affordable options, would the Forever 21 patrons be able and willing to turn to the Houses instead? Probably not. Instead of changing the 5% of copies sales into brand name sales, the industry will probably just lose most of the 5%. The industry will probably lose more sales when trends do not change as often and the name-seekers do not feel the need to change styles so rapidly. The copy market exists for a reason: the consumers want it and it makes the industry run. | >
> | If anything is to be ruined, copyright laws would ruin the market forces currently at play. Judging by the size of the industry, there are clearly a good number of brand name sales. That is, there are people who are willing to pay the cost of bearing those unique insignias. When about 95% of sales in the American apparel industry are attributable to brand name sales even with all the much more affordable options, there is something to be said about the strength of the names. However, if copyright laws were to wipe out the copy giants and their affordable options, would the Forever 21 patrons be able and willing to turn to the Houses instead? Probably not. Instead of changing the 5% of copies sales into brand name sales, the industry will probably just lose most of the 5%. The industry will probably lose more sales when trends do not change as often and the name-seekers do not feel the need to change styles so rapidly. The copy market exists for a reason: it simultaneously generates supply for the poor and demand for the rich. | | | Conclusion
The CFDA’s copyright endeavors seem to be shortsighted. It is trying to stretch IP laws in a direction that has traditionally shunned it and has thrived because of its absence. If its motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place or push for more stringent penalties for counterfeiting or infringing on their logos and prints. |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 7 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008
| |
<
< | Fashion: the New Legal Battleground? | >
> | Fashion: the New IP Battleground? | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The Council of Fashion Designers of America has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055, which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | >
> | The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055, which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | | |
Why does it matter? | |
<
< | Copying (designs inspired by the ones produced by The Fashion Houses, not counterfeit items) allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. Copyrighting designs may also put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose “haves” versus “have-nots” social ramifications call for an entirely different paper). | >
> | Copying (designs inspired by the ones produced by The Fashion Houses, not counterfeit items) allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. Copyrighting designs may also put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose social ramifications call for an entirely different paper). Furthermore, copyrighting could stymie the careers of young or new designers who cannot afford the legal fees to copyright-check their designs or do not have enough experience to work for a House. Finally, copyrighting may stunt creativity. If certain sleeves or hemlines were exclusive to particular Houses, then other designers would be precluded from using those design techniques and elements in realizing their own works. | | | What is being sold here?
Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. To be sure, a fashion trend is not House-specific. Dolce&Gabbana doesn’t own the skinny jean nor does Chloe own the trapeze top. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21.
Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the price tag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article posing as a size indicator. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | |
<
< | Trademark and Anti-piracy Laws | >
> | Trademark Laws | | | Currently, there exist trademark laws that protect brand names and logos. Original patterns and prints are also protected by law. Thus, the truly “original” aspects of the Houses’ production are protected already. For example, designer Tory Burch sued a number of chain stores for carrying ballerina flats with insignias too similar to hers. Likewise, designer Anna Sui sued Forever 21 for infringing on her unique prints on 26 occasions. There are more than twenty other designers who have filed similar lawsuits against Forever 21. To be sure, intentional attempts to produce counterfeit original luxury goods are prohibited by law.
So what is "ruined"? | |
<
< | The Bottega Veneta Example | >
> | What exactly was Miller talking about when she said that copying “ruins the whole thing”? Maybe she meant lower classes were not meant to look so much like her patrons who spent the money. What about all those people who get the $3,000 top instead of the $26 look-alike? Surely, they don’t want to look like the lower classes.
But manufacturers, retailers and even some intellectual property scholars insist that this copying is exactly what generates the fashion industry. Copying promotes industry by inducing current trends to become obsolete and creating demand for new ones. Those who buy the $11,000 outfits (many celebrities) will gladly do so again to keep “ahead of the fashion.” Ordinary people will see their favorite celebrities wearing the ahead-of-their-time pieces, wait (not for long) for similar designs to hit Forever 21, and perpetuate a trend. Once the trend gets played out enough, the former group will again seek out the new $11,000 “original design.” Sure, some “original designs” get leaked prematurely over the web and copies hit stores before the “originals” do, but chances are, unless the “original” is not following an already popular trend, most people wouldn’t buy the copy until they see it on TV or in magazines anyway. | | | Let the Market Speak | |
<
< | | >
> | If anything is to be ruined, copyright laws would ruin the market forces currently at play. Judging by the size of the industry, there are clearly a good number of brand name sales. That is, there are people who are willing to pay the cost of bearing those unique insignias. When about 95% of sales in the American apparel industry are attributable to brand name sales even with all the much more affordable options, there is something to be said about the strength of the names. However, if copyright laws were to wipe out the copy giants and their affordable options, would the Forever 21 patrons be able and willing to turn to the Houses instead? Probably not. Instead of changing the 5% of copies sales into brand name sales, the industry will probably just lose most of the 5%. The industry will probably lose more sales when trends do not change as often and the name-seekers do not feel the need to change styles so rapidly. The copy market exists for a reason: the consumers want it and it makes the industry run. | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion
The CFDA’s copyright endeavors seem to be shortsighted. It is trying to stretch IP laws in a direction that has traditionally shunned it and has thrived because of its absence. If its motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place or push for more stringent penalties for counterfeiting or infringing on their logos and prints. | | |
|
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 6 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | What is being sold here?
Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. To be sure, a fashion trend is not House-specific. Dolce&Gabbana doesn’t own the skinny jean nor does Chloe own the trapeze top. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21. | |
<
< | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the price tag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article posing as a size indicator. | >
> | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the price tag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article posing as a size indicator. Ultimately, the Houses are putting their symbols, their good names on the market. | | | Trademark and Anti-piracy Laws | |
<
< | The Anna Sui Example
| >
> | Currently, there exist trademark laws that protect brand names and logos. Original patterns and prints are also protected by law. Thus, the truly “original” aspects of the Houses’ production are protected already. For example, designer Tory Burch sued a number of chain stores for carrying ballerina flats with insignias too similar to hers. Likewise, designer Anna Sui sued Forever 21 for infringing on her unique prints on 26 occasions. There are more than twenty other designers who have filed similar lawsuits against Forever 21. To be sure, intentional attempts to produce counterfeit original luxury goods are prohibited by law. | | | So what is "ruined"?
The Bottega Veneta Example |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 5 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Fashion: the New Legal Battleground?
Introduction | |
<
< | The Council of Fashion Designers of America [http://www.cfda.com/] has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05055], which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/09wilson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | >
> | The Council of Fashion Designers of America has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055, which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | | | | |
<
< | But isn’t fashion, as an institution, based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends? Every season, we see very similar design elements from all the fashion houses, which get reinterpreted and trickle down to your local Forever 21. Manufacturers, retailers and some intellectual property scholars insist that copying promotes industry by inducing current trends to become obsolete and creating demand for new ones [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597]. | | | Why does it matter? | |
<
< | Copying allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1207065800-KOCruUld%20Xj8bAttc/lvDA]. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. On a larger scale, copyrighting designs may put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose “haves” versus “have-nots” ramifications call for an entirely different paper).
| >
> | Copying (designs inspired by the ones produced by The Fashion Houses, not counterfeit items) allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. Copyrighting designs may also put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose “haves” versus “have-nots” social ramifications call for an entirely different paper). | | | | |
>
> | What is being sold here?
Fashion, as an institution, is based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends. A trend is a trend because everyone is doing it. Throughout the years, hemlines have risen and fallen. Waistlines have sat high on the hips and super low. To be sure, a fashion trend is not House-specific. Dolce&Gabbana doesn’t own the skinny jean nor does Chloe own the trapeze top. Every season, we see very similar design elements from the Houses, which get reinterpreted and distributed to your local Forever 21. | | | | |
>
> | Then, what is so different about low-end fashion manufacturers copying “original designs” when the “original designs” themselves are copies of other designs? The most obvious answer would be the price tag. Other differences include quality of materials and craftsmanship. But most importantly, the “original designs” all have insignias, unique to the House that claims to have created the design, proudly emblazoned on the sleeve, seam of the bodice, and/or inside the article posing as a size indicator. | | | | |
<
< | What is being sold here? The design or the trademark? | | | Trademark and Anti-piracy Laws
The Anna Sui Example
|
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 4 - 01 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Fashion: the New Legal Battleground?
Introduction | |
>
> | The Council of Fashion Designers of America [http://www.cfda.com/] has been pushing Congress to pass H.R. 5055 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05055], which will include fashion design to be protected under copyright. Designers such as Nicole Miller [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/09wilson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] complain that their “original designs” should be protected because copying makes the trends “end too fast,” makes clothes “lose value,” and “ruins the whole thing.” | | | | |
<
< | Why does it matter? | >
> | But isn’t fashion, as an institution, based on copying elements from other designs and disseminating the trends? Every season, we see very similar design elements from all the fashion houses, which get reinterpreted and trickle down to your local Forever 21. Manufacturers, retailers and some intellectual property scholars insist that copying promotes industry by inducing current trends to become obsolete and creating demand for new ones [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597]. | | | | |
>
> | Why does it matter?
Copying allegedly accounts for more than 5% of the $181 billion American apparel industry [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1207065800-KOCruUld%20Xj8bAttc/lvDA]. If designs were copyrighted, consumers would ultimately pay in the form of higher prices for the legal fees associated with checking for copyrighted material and obtaining rights to use “original designs” in low-end fashion. On a larger scale, copyrighting designs may put “copy giants” such as Forever 21 out of business, closing out the only option for many consumers who otherwise would not be able to afford styles that are in fashion. Those who cannot afford the high-end prices may be forced to be “unfashionable” (whose “haves” versus “have-nots” ramifications call for an entirely different paper). | | |
| |
<
< | What is being sold here? - the design or the trademark?
| >
> | What is being sold here? The design or the trademark?
Trademark and Anti-piracy Laws
The Anna Sui Example | | | | |
<
< |
| >
> | So what is "ruined"?
The Bottega Veneta Example
Let the Market Speak | | |
| |
<
< | | >
> | | | | Hi Christina,
Not sure where you plan to go with the paper but I thought you might want to consult this short article I read this summer. It was either in the New Yorker or The Economist. Don't remember... Anyways, the article argues that copies are actually good for the fashion industry because mass reproduction of trends "forces" fashionable women to buy new Fall, Spring, and Resort lines. They argue that fashionable women don't want to wear, say leggings or florals, once everyone begins to wear them. Stores like Forever 21 are good for higher name brands. |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 3 - 01 Apr 2008 - Main.ChristinaYoun
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | -- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Also there was this article last week in the New York Times (i admit i did not finish reading it) last week about how luxury brands are backing away from branding and moving towards more quiet and classic luxury. Something something recession fashion. The move away from logos is not exactly big news but it's still interesting. Muted luxury is an interesting form of conspicious consumption. Only those versed in the codes can read the outfit.
Just some thoughts. Hope this helps even though I don't really know your topic.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Thanks Thalia, I think I may have read those same articles in the New York Times. The first article you mentioned is actually what inspired this forthcoming paper, so you're right on. The webpage crashed when I was trying to edit so I didn't exactly do a good job of laying out my paper. I'll try to edit again later today so you'll actually have some substantive material to comment on. Thanks for your interest and please leave more comments! | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 2 - 01 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | -- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | |
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Hi Christina,
Not sure where you plan to go with the paper but I thought you might want to consult this short article I read this summer. It was either in the New Yorker or The Economist. Don't remember... Anyways, the article argues that copies are actually good for the fashion industry because mass reproduction of trends "forces" fashionable women to buy new Fall, Spring, and Resort lines. They argue that fashionable women don't want to wear, say leggings or florals, once everyone begins to wear them. Stores like Forever 21 are good for higher name brands.
Also there was this article last week in the New York Times (i admit i did not finish reading it) last week about how luxury brands are backing away from branding and moving towards more quiet and classic luxury. Something something recession fashion. The move away from logos is not exactly big news but it's still interesting. Muted luxury is an interesting form of conspicious consumption. Only those versed in the codes can read the outfit.
Just some thoughts. Hope this helps even though I don't really know your topic. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|