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