| | |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |