Fashion Designers Hope That Michelle Obama Gets Them Copyright On Clothing Design
from the comes-from-all-directions... dept
While there are plenty of legitimate worries that the Obama administration is way too influenced by copyright maximalists, who knew that the battle for ridiculous new copyright laws would start involving the First Lady as well? For years, the fashion industry has been a shining example of an industry where innovation and competition thrives, despite no ability to copyright designs and widespread copying of those designs. However, what's resulted is a more dynamic and more creative marketplace that has actually increased output and helped enlarge the market. In fact, repeated studies have shown that it's this lack of intellectual property protection that has made the industry so successful, and that implementing restrictions would actually harm the industry. That's because the rampant copying has done many good things:- It helps permeate new designs into the market much faster.
- It creates a defacto market segmentation between "originals" and copies, which actually has increased the value of having an original brand name design.
- It encourages more innovation because designers know that they need to keep coming out with new works to stay on top, rather than relying on their old designs.
In other words, the leaders in highly competitive markets often implicitly recognize that IP protection does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose: and they want that. It helps lock them into a leadership position by easing competition, and slowing down the pace at which they need to innovate. So, it should be no surprise that over the years, some top fashion designers have pushed hard for Congress to create a new copyright for fashion designs, despite the total lack of evidence of any need (and, in fact, lots of evidence to the contrary). NY Senator Chuck Schumer has been a big supporter of such a damaging idea, but it hasn't gone anywhere to date.
Yet, now we find out that many top designers, who have designed dresses for the First Lady, Michelle Obama, are hoping to enlist her help in supporting such legislation. They're apparently excited that Michelle Obama is known for her fashion sense, and are playing off of that to get more attention. Unfortunately, in the article linked here, the Washington Post's fashion columnist simply parrots the designers' false claims about how such copying "harms" the industry, despite the evidence saying exactly the opposite. I guess it's too much to ask the Post's fashion columnist to actually understand or research the issue, but it's unfortunate that these false ideas are being reported as fact, and that the First Lady may get dragged into a battle that would ultimately harm fashion design by establishing protectionism where none is needed.
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
Filed Under: competition, copyright, fashion design, fashion industry, innovation, michelle obama
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So what?
"Experience is a harsh school, but fools will learn in no other."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what?
Yes actually, but...that might not be a bad thing in the long run. Sure copyright and trademarks are being abused more these days, but people are used to these laws being applied to music, movies, books, etc. But what would happen if they started to apply already abusive levels of copyright and trademark protections to the fashion world?
Maybe this is a bit sexist, but can you imagine the reaction from the women of America if the price of clothes went up dramatically? You'd have a revolution on your hands. (Hell hath no fury like a woman who gets sticker shock when they go to Macy's.) Maybe that would be enough to spur overall reform of copyright and trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
So, what would you call the group of people who were responsible for policing the enforcement of fashion copyrights? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence to the oppposite
thanks very much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence to the oppposite
http://fashionsolutions.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
I explain that I presented my position at the Copyright Society last June, and in their recent law journal. The blog gives you many details of evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, I'm now reversing positions. If we can couple this law w/an aggressive nationally instituted excersize memorandum, I'm in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secondly, this is yet another news column that proves that current news outlets do not provide value to the news. They parrot one source and never look for the counter opinion. News people are a lazy bunch these days and should be going out of business in droves. Maybe new journalists will fill the vacancies and actually research an article more thoroughly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in this regard, it's possible for a brand to be diluted by fakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that's exactly what trademark law is for, so additional copyright protection is not at all necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> where now each one I see I perceive as being fake; not real.
>
> So in this regard, it's possible for a brand to be diluted by fakes.
No. What dillutes the name of something like Louis Vuitton is easy money. A flood of cheap consumer credit means that you don't actually have to be rich to pay an absurd amount for a dress or a purse anymore. It ends up on par with the corner Starbucks.
It ceases to be any sort of real status symbol. It perpetuated to the point that it might as well be generic.
No, the housing bubble is responsible for a Vuitton something appearing generic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't really understand how the fashion industry works. The industry wants constant and continual change. The industry does not want you wearing the same clothes season after season. That's why fashions continually change, to force people to buy new clothes even though their old clothes are still wearable.
"Did you see Sally? Her dress is so last year!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everything has already been made...
i hope this happens only to see how much fun it will be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one mentioned the slippery slope argument. If cloths designs, then what about hair styles, nail polish, and makeup patterns. What about food recipes and presentations on the plate (some are pretty creative). And why aren't all forms of speech creative in some way. I don't want anyone to repeat and pattens of language that I create, whether written, performed, or just talk between friends. After all, I created them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting "patterns of language"? Being done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for bringing to the forefront
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP protection for you only
I am sure you believe in what you are writing here, but it is complete fantasy. It is a total croc.
"The fashion industry is thriving." Nope
"It's creative." No, it's actually quite stagnant. Have you been to GUESS lately? Jeans and T-shirts. Wow, that's original.
"Innovation is spurred by rampant copying." That's completely ficticious. Rampant copying discourages innovation.
"Numerous and repeated studies have shown..." if they are so numerous, why no references? Because you made that up to try to legitimize your wishful thinking.
You sound like one of those radio show hosts who will say anything, just to get people on both sides heated up.
The first law that should be made is to bar consumers from debates about what producers rights should be.
They know not what the producers go thru, and therefore as literally as literal can get...do not know what they are talking about.
From the biased perspective of just wanting stuff as cheap as possible, preferrably free, they invent baseless claims, and make nonsensical statements that are nothing but wishful thinking.
The debate would be very different if it was their 40, 50 or 60 hours per week that was supposed to go unpaid.
Please understand that IP laws are not for the protection of ideas. Ideas are cheap and easy to come by. "A dime a dozen" as one person put it. Anyone can sit there and say, "Wouldn't it be nice if TV's were flat, thin & wall-mounted"
But try engineering one! THAT takes a lot of expensive education and countless frustrating hours. THAT is what is being protected by IP/copyright laws. THAT is what people expect to get paid for. And THAT is what people WILL NOT ATTEMPT if someone else can easily cash in on the fruits of their labor, for 10 cents on the dollar, because of having no R&D costs to recoup.
Innovation is not coming up with ideas. It is the blood, sweat and tears of making an idea into a reality.
Innovation IS stimulated by competition.
It most assuredly is not stimulated by allowing copying.
It is stifled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Fashion Designers Hope That Michelle Obama Gets Them Copyright On Clothing Design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]