More Research Shows How The Fashion Industry Is Helped By The Lack Of Intellectual Property Rights
from the keep-it-coming dept
Back in 2003, we mentioned an article that compared the entertainment industry to the fashion industry, noting that even though there was no intellectual property protections over clothing design and copying was rampant, the fashion industry was thriving. This shouldn't come as a surprise, really. After all, without the artificial protectionism, the fashion designers are forced to continually compete by continually innovating and always trying to come out with the latest and greatest design. Even though others copy, there's tremendous value in being the first, or being the "big name" in the industry. The article included this fantastic quote: "Ideas arise, evolve through collaboration, gain currency through exposure, mutate in new directions, and diffuse through imitation. The constant borrowing, repurposing, and transformation of prior work are as integral to creativity in music and film as they are to fashion." In 2005, the NY Times wrote a similar article, but warned that the fashion industry was moving in the wrong direction, as lazy designers who didn't want to compete and wanted to rest on their laurels had started pushing for new intellectual property over their designs. Late last year, the calls for such protectionism grew even stronger -- though, the reasoning doesn't make any sense. The entire point of intellectual property protections is to create incentives for a market. If that market is already thriving, why do you need to add new incentives? The real reason is that it's not to provide incentives. It's a way for successful players to keep making money without continuing to innovate -- which is simply bad for society.The NY Times is taking another look at this issue, this time in a piece written by well-known economist Hal Varian, who points to a recent study that doesn't just note that the fashion industry has thrived without intellectual property protection, but notes that a big part of the reason it has thrived is because of the lack of IP. In other words, if those pushing for those new IP rights get them, the end result will likely be harmful to the overall fashion industry. Again, this shouldn't be surprising, as removing protectionist policies tends to increase competition and the size of the addressable market, but it's certainly a good example to point to when people insist that things like the music industry wouldn't exist without copyright protection.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Care for a genuine Louis Vultton bag? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clothing is qualitatively different
Sportwear manufacturers regularly patent their designs. Nike has 2157 patents and not just design patents. But, they use design patents to establish unique designs that act as trademarks. I've never heard of Adidas, Reebok, or anyone else complaining of being unable to innovate because Nike did something new and patented it.
The fashion industry may thrive on induced obsolescence and copying. But the clothing industry is happily using patents all over the place. Which kind of diminishes the impact of the IP-less fashion industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clothing is qualitatively different
Why?
The fashion industry may thrive on induced obsolescence and copying. But the clothing industry is happily using patents all over the place. Which kind of diminishes the impact of the IP-less fashion industry.
Squik, you need to work on your debate skills. The presences of patents in the industry doesn't change the core of the research -- that *fashion design* does not rely on IP protection, and actually thrives in large part due to the lack of it.
Your responses on these issues are really confusing. You seem to assume some weird correlation: if patents and innovation, then patents must have been useful in driving innovation. You do realize that the two things are entirely separate, right?
The focus of the research here was on innovation in fashion design that uses no IP protection and has thrived because of it. Your response was to talk about something entirely different and then insist that proves the original point wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clothing is qualitatively different
Clothing as opposed to the "fashion industry". The "fashion industry", by definition, creates short-lived trends in style and color in the clothing industry. Meanwhile, clothing industry regularly seeks both design and utility patents to protect both style, design, and technological innovations. It is the difference between the sizzle and the steak.
The "fashion industry" is a small part of the clothing industry. By its very nature creates designs that last a season and must be change. By definition, the "fashion industry" creates nothing of enduring value. Patent protection makes no sense because the industry is constantly forcing obsolescence on its product.
Now, design is different from the "fashion industry". There are companies working in the apparel business who use design (and utility) patents to protect styles and designs that they intend to have enduring value. Sportwear manufacturers, who create functional clothing and often want distinctive designs, to associate with a particular technology or brand image. Luxury brands and top designers such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Donna Karan, Ralph Lauren, Christian Dior, etc. also file design and utility patents to protect distinctive designs in clothing, jewelry, accessories, perfume, etc. They invest more money in these innovations than the designer who decides "This year, it's floral prints!"
So, you've concentrated on one small area. Made some assertions that aren't entirely true, since top designers do use patents to protect their enduring design elements. But made the case that in a segment of an industry that thrives on induced obsolescence and copying, patents haven't had an impact. Wow.
The "fashion industry" is hardly a good analogy for any technology fields. Especially when the industries upon which the "fashion industry" rests is busy patenting both designs and technologies that have enduring value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clothing is qualitatively different
I think (once again) you seem to be confusing cause and effect here. The reason for the obsolescence is that they can't build up monopolies that allow them to protect a specific design. THAT is why they keep innovating and keep designing new designs.
There's no reason the same wouldn't be true for other areas that are currently protected by IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clothing is qualitatively different
Clothing as opposed to the "fashion industry". The "fashion industry", by definition, creates short-lived trends in style and color in the clothing industry. Meanwhile, clothing industry regularly seeks both design and utility patents to protect both style, design, and technological innovations. It is the difference between the sizzle and the steak.
The "fashion industry" is a small part of the clothing industry. By its very nature creates designs that last a season and must be change. By definition, the "fashion industry" creates nothing of enduring value. Patent protection makes no sense because the industry is constantly forcing obsolescence on its product.
Now, design is different from the "fashion industry". There are companies working in the apparel business who use design (and utility) patents to protect styles and designs that they intend to have enduring value. Sportwear manufacturers, who create functional clothing and often want distinctive designs, to associate with a particular technology or brand image. Luxury brands and top designers such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Donna Karan, Ralph Lauren, Christian Dior, etc. also file design and utility patents to protect distinctive designs in clothing, jewelry, accessories, perfume, etc. They invest more money in these innovations than the designer who decides "This year, it's floral prints!"
So, you've concentrated on one small area. Made some assertions that aren't entirely true, since top designers do use patents to protect their enduring design elements. But made the case that in a segment of an industry that thrives on induced obsolescence and copying, patents haven't had an impact. Wow.
The "fashion industry" is hardly a good analogy for any technology fields. Especially when the industries upon which the "fashion industry" rests is busy patenting both designs and technologies that have enduring value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Development Costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Development Costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No comparison
There's little reason to apply for a design patent or a copyright on a dress design that'll be sold out and gone before you get back the acknowledgement from the patent or copyright offices.
To take the fashion industry as a model for innovative industries is to grasp at surficial logic and unprovable analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No comparison
Unlike the music industry where a song remains in the top ten forever and continues to sell the same number of units for years?
Or would that be the music industry where a song gets popular and sells well then tails off after a period of initial interest, only in some instances to have a revival years later
Of course some songs stay popular for years, but they still don't usually sell in anywhere near the volume of the initial period again unless they are revamped
Nope on the whole I think its a very fair comparisson - in clothing this is called 'fashion', in music it is called 'pop' (but yes this applies in equal truth to indie, rock etc etc)
There are exceptions to the above in music, but I am pretty sure you could find an equal number of exceptions in fashion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterfeiting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright != IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP for Fashion Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, what makes you think that they want to build up monopolies around a specific design? Fact is, they don't, they want their outfits becoming outdated or in the technology world, obsolete.
You feel like having to buy a new phone system every year or not being able to dial from a white phone after labor day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, that's not true at all. Look at the post we had last year about the designers pushing for special new IP for clothing design. Those folks made it clear that they absolutely want special monopolies around specific designs, and they want their designs to last on the market much longer so they can milk them for much more.
The whole pace of fashion is a result of the lack of IP protection in the field. That's how the industry dealt with it. Don't confuse cause and effect here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad analogy
Talk about the fashion industry and how they've dealt with IP, but don't use it to draw bad analogies with the entertainment industry. There is plenty of ammo to use against the RIAA's and MPAA's claims, you don't need to stretch. I support much of what you say, which is why I bother to call you out on this rare occasion when you "swing and miss."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy
That's not quite accurate. It is accurate for the big name designers, but go back and read some of the earlier posts, and it's the small time designers that are most likely to complain -- and in that case the "knockoffs" are basically identical.
And even then the analogy is flawed because it's not the customers making exact copies of a Donna Karan dress for free with no effort...
Ah, but don't get confused by what's happening in the entertainment industry. Even though there it appears that the customers are making the "copies" it's really the competition. That's because the industry is really in the distribution business, and all unauthorized file sharing does is create a competitive distribution system. So it's actually a lot more similar than you make it out to be.
However, the key point remains, squik's non-sequitors notwithstanding: the claims of those who support IP regimes always fall back on the idea that without such IP regimes you couldn't have innovation because no one would invest. In fact, Squik himself has made effectively that argument by claiming the prudent company won't invest in new works if they can be easily copied.
Yet here's a perfect example of why that's not the case at all. What happens is that, rather than relying on IP protection, the producers in that field adapt and come up with a new (and some would say, better) business model of continuous innovation.
That applies equally to the entertainment industry or industries that rely on patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]