-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008

Fashion: the New IP Battleground?

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.”

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.

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 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"?

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.

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!