A Look At How The Fashion Industry Thrives Without Copyright
from the oh-look... dept
We've discussed how the fashion industry is an excellent example of how a creative industry can thrive and be highly competitive and innovative without copyright many times before. In fact, way back in 2003, we noted that there was much that the entertainment industry could learn from the fashion industry. Since then, we've seen academic research highlighting how much of the success in the industry was due to the lack of copyright, because it helped spur continuous innovation, rather than letting someone rest on their laurels. On top of that, it also helped segment the market, speed diffusion, build out trends and actually increase the reputation of top designers.Given all that, we could never understand why some top designers (though, certainly certainly not all) are so desperate to get a special copyright on fashion, despite the suggestions it would actually stifle the market quite a bit. They've been relying on highly questionable research from a lawyer, which doesn't stand up to the most basic economic analysis.
However, there are folks who are pointing out how important the lack of copyright protection is in the fashion industry. Peter Tanham points us to a recently posted TED talk by Johanna Blakely about how the fashion industry thrives without copyright:
The thing that disappointed me about the presentation, frankly, is that while it's titled: "Lessons from fashion's free culture" Blakely never really gets that deeply into the lessons. She does talk about a few other areas of creative endeavors where copyright is not allowed for the most part (recipes, cars, furniture, etc.) and has an amusing slide that compares the revenue generated in industries with copyright and those not protected by copyright (the "not protected by copyright" part vastly outweighs the "protected by copyright" side). I'd like to see that slide in a bit more detail, because, while amusing, it threatens to fall into the same trap as the recent Chamber of Commerce report that tries to claim the exact opposite. It says that copyright protected industries contribute a lot more to the economy than non-covered industries. In both cases, though, I fear that there's some cherry-picking of data and questionable classifications.
I do think that there's a ton to learn from industries like the fashion industry -- including suggestions on ways those lessons can be applied to industries like music and movies. Hopefully we'll start seeing a deeper analysis on that soon.
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
3. Copy, copy, copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1
1. Copy.
2. Copy, copy.
Nothing is created from nothing. Everything depends on previous invention, creation, and/or production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #1
Indeed, lets do away with ALL property rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learning = Copying
Just like how Apple is suing HTC, one could argue that HTC is copying them but why isn't Apple going after other manufacturers? It's only because Apple has officially recognized as Android OS being equal or better and HTC also being equal or better. In fact because of HTC, Apple is now copying them. Which means that Apple Iphone is officially now not much different from any other touch screen mobile device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most importantly: there is very little new in clothes that hasnt already been done 1000 times before. there are copyrights for certain types of materials used, logos, and the like, but since clothes are just complete recycles, nobody can claim anything that doesnt already have prior art.
it is a nice attempt to show copyright as useless, but only if you are willing to ignore reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess that's why Hollywood keeps making remakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The studies mentioned above actually show that this short season is in large part *due* to the lack of copyright. So you claim that's different, but the reason it's like that is because of the lack of copyright. Thus, this claim of being different does not apply.
second, there is no actual counterfeiting of the product at the retail level (only in flea markets). companies are not using each others logos and such, which is all jealously protected by trademark and such.
Indeed, but that's a different issue. We're talking direct copying. And what this shows is that there is a difference which consumers understand about the "authentic" version and the knockoff.
third, the lead time required to copy someone else product exactly is long for most manufactures, which means they arent actually copying, but rather trying to mimic style points from fashion shows and such. lengths of skirts, size of labels, necklines, cut, etc.
Not quite. I forget the name of the company, but there's a famous one that creates knockoffs of dresses seen at fashion shows and on the red carpet at awards shows in something like a day -- and in shops in less than a week.
most importantly: there is very little new in clothes that hasnt already been done 1000 times before. there are copyrights for certain types of materials used, logos, and the like, but since clothes are just complete recycles, nobody can claim anything that doesnt already have prior art.
You seem to be confusing a few different issues here. First of all, many designers would claim that's totally wrong. There's lots of new stuff.
Second, can you point me to a copyright on material?
Third, logos are a trademark issue, not copyright.
Finally, "prior art" is an issue for patents, which has nothing to do with copyrights on clothing. You could try to patent clothing, but those pretty much always fail as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The studies mentioned above actually show that this short season is in large part *due* to the lack of copyright. So you claim that's different, but the reason it's like that is because of the lack of copyright. Thus, this claim of being different does not apply." - chicken or egg? fashion advances mostly because the fashion industry knows they cant sell you this season what they sold you last year at the same time. you already have that. it is much more to do with marketing than replication.
"Indeed, but that's a different issue. We're talking direct copying. And what this shows is that there is a difference which consumers understand about the "authentic" version and the knockoff." - there is no direct copying. smart marketing types (the new SITC2 fashions are a good example) have both the high end couture label stuff, and the Sears quality knockoffs. they are not the same products, and are not duplicates. there is little in the way of direct copies in fashion, every one is different, much like a class of people all drawing the same "art nude" from a live subject.
"Not quite. I forget the name of the company, but there's a famous one that creates knockoffs of dresses seen at fashion shows and on the red carpet at awards shows in something like a day -- and in shops in less than a week." - there is one company in europe doing fast turn around production, but they are an exception. even then, anyone replicating by eye only something that appears in a fashion show isnt making a copy, but their own interpretation of what they saw. not exactly the same, no?
"You seem to be confusing a few different issues here. First of all, many designers would claim that's totally wrong. There's lots of new stuff." - mostly it is new combinations. short skirts with big waist, small waist, belted waist, etc. there are few if any new techniques coming along. there are some unique materials and processes, and those are often copyrighted or only manufactured for the couture houses.
"Second, can you point me to a copyright on material?" - Actually, I think patent may be more appropriate here, example would be something like thinsulate, from 3m. it is both a trademark name, and a patent product (from the 60s, I think). there are plenty of patents of various materials such as this.
"Finally, "prior art" is an issue for patents, which has nothing to do with copyrights on clothing. You could try to patent clothing, but those pretty much always fail as well." - see above. patent is the correct area (sorry for confusion). The manufacturing processes and the produced materials can be patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Professional studies vs TAM opinion. You lose TAM, try again.
"there is no direct copying. smart marketing types (the new SITC2 fashions are a good example) have both the high end couture label stuff, and the Sears quality knockoffs. they are not the same products, and are not duplicates. there is little in the way of direct copies in fashion, every one is different, much like a class of people all drawing the same "art nude" from a live subject."
So a bootleg DVD is not a direct copy? Or the pirate video game with skippable ads, no CD requirement and no DRM? Thanks for clarifying.
"there is one company in europe doing fast turn around production, but they are an exception. even then, anyone replicating by eye only something that appears in a fashion show isnt making a copy, but their own interpretation of what they saw. not exactly the same, no?"
If there was copyright, they would be sued, and would lose the case. That's as close to the same as you need to be.
"mostly it is new combinations. short skirts with big waist, small waist, belted waist, etc. there are few if any new techniques coming along. there are some unique materials and processes, and those are often copyrighted or only manufactured for the couture houses."
Just like how Hollywood recycles the same scripts and themes, right? Tvtropes.org. Check it out. All media is just a rehashing of different combinations of 'tropes'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So a bootleg DVD is not a direct copy? Or the pirate video game with skippable ads, no CD requirement and no DRM? Thanks for clarifying." - the differences in products between industries makes it a non-parallel comparison. good try, but you fail. perhaps you using a video camera to make your own version of a movie would be closer, but even then, you would run into issues if you used the same characters and scripts. lets just say there is no parallel to draw here and move on.
"If there was copyright, they would be sued, and would lose the case. That's as close to the same as you need to be." - you are correct. but since the couture original isnt really original, the knock off (notice not copy, but knock off) is by its very definition version of something that isnt the original. if it used patent material of course, they would likely be in trouble.
"Just like how Hollywood recycles the same scripts and themes, right? Tvtropes.org. Check it out. All media is just a rehashing of different combinations of 'tropes'." - you confuse gendres and general plot lines with specific stories. again, this is mostly a techdirt koolaid problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When have movies or music stayed in the spotlight for longer?
>it is a nice attempt to show copyright as useless, but only if you are willing to ignore reality.
It's a nice attempt to show anyone showing copyright as useless, but then, we already know you ignore cited studies, and blanket claim everyone as freeloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It's a nice attempt to show anyone showing copyright as useless, but then, we already know you ignore cited studies, and blanket claim everyone as freeloaders." - the cited study is someone ted presentation, not exactly a deep document to work from. as for freeloaders, what else do you call someone who always wants something for nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment bait
OK, I'll bite. Because the current top designers don't give a shit about stifling the market as long as they get a disproportionate share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explain how it would be "disproportionate" for the ones actually INNOVATING to be making the most money?
I would be ashamed to work at a knock-off clothing company. Participating in a trend or style is different than outright copying a specific piece of clothing as closely as fiscally possible. That's just tacky. And I would consider any income derived from such an endeavor to be "disproportionate" to what they should have earned, which is nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you've misunderstood my answer. Mike professed to not understand why the top designers would want to implement a fashion copyright in spite of the fact that it would stifle the overall fashion market. Expanding on my reply, the top designers would want to implement a fashion copyright so that they would have an anticompetative advantage so they could rest on their laurels i.e. stop innovating as much, which would grant them a disporportionate share of the total market's profits. In short, a top designer doesn't care if the pie gets smaller as long as they get a larger slice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working in a knock-off clothing company
Someone anonymously said: I would be ashamed to work at a knock-off clothing company. Participating in a trend or style is different than outright copying a specific piece of clothing as closely as fiscally possible.
I'm just a computer nerd, and before that, I worked in aerospace engineering, and I found myself scratching my head about your statement. I'm not at all sure how to differentiate between "participating in a trend or style" and "outright copying", at least on street level. Perhaps this is the Legendary Engineering Sense of Style speaking, but I thought that "participating in a style" was exactly "copying as closely as fiscally possible". If you're wealthy, you get the brand label clothing to participate in the style. If you're less wealthy, you get a knock off. If you're a rebellious teen, you make or acquire something that's as close as you can get, and then modify it with patches, markers, safetypins, etc, to show how rebellious you are.
Honestly, how can I, an ex-engineer with no style sense whatsoever, tell what's an "outright copy" and what's "participating in a style or trend". This looks like one of those dopey things that "Business People" want me to program, but requires a reference to some Grand High Arbiter (or "oracle" as we say in programming) for each decision. I'm not trying to be a wiseacre here, I'm honestly confused on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a better comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Market.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/25/2222207/The-Fashion-Industry-As-a-Model-For-IP-Reform
h ttp://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?cm=ccc/fashion
The various authors on the Lear Center website noted that the important property in fashion is trademark, and specifically, the kind of robust trademark which is carefully designed to avoid any possible confusion. They didn't take the next step however. Some years ago, the fashion journalist Kennedy Fraser pointed out that fashion designers actually make their money by the merchandising of their labels for products which are not their distinctive designs in any shape or form, and which are often not even clothing, meaning stuff like toiletries. Twenty-five cents worth of chemical goop in a bottle, with the appropriate designer label on it, might be worth five or ten dollars. Meanwhile, the sartorial reality is that an increasing proportion of women dress substantially like boys, ie. jeans, T-shirt, and sneakers. They compensate by purchasing the bottled goop. Fashion has been pushed to the level of fantasy life.
The reality is that we live in a world of self-service gas stations. More importantly, it has been demonstrated that anyone who cannot learn to do at least rudimentary repairs on whatever machines they work with will take a drastic hit in pay. Some years ago, a social worker consulted me about a handicapped young man, who wanted to work with computers. He'd had a bad accident, and was confined to a wheelchair. So I was asking the social worker questions like, did she think he could use a screwdriver. Probably not. Anyway, back then, computers were still in horizontal boxes, with the monitors sitting on top, not the tower cases we use now. So you had to pick the monitor, the glass CRT monitor, up just to get at the computer box. There weren't a whole lot of good answers, I'm afraid. This guy had no choice about his position. Women do have choices, and that affects the sales of fashion clothing. Obviously, it is much easier to pick up a forty-pound box and put it down somewhere else if you are not wobbling on high heels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kabooze is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh, wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they use Trademark instead, there are huge problems
And Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are all different forms of the same Interlectual Property (IP) laws.
There is a massive and thriving black market in counterfeit designer Apparel and Accessories, there allways has been.
It's the same thing, someone seems a person or company doing well, and decides to take their idea and use it to make some money for themselves, without having to think for yourself.
Thats what it amounts too, and you think innovation comes from that, copying someone elses copyright, or tradement is not innovating, it taking their idea and using it yourself, it's a 'no brainer'.
why should a company like Rolex have to be damaged after creating very high quality product and service structure, and a product that is highly desirable, for someone else to come along and take that name and use it's good reputation (which they did not pay to create), for their own gain.
It's a crime, it's a huge problem for everyone, (suppliers and consumers).
Some figures, (i know you like statistics), for you.
"in a detailed breakdown of the counterfeit goods industry, the total losses faces by countries around the world totals $600 Billion dollars, with the United states facing the most economic impact. [4]
When calculating counterfeit products, current estimates place the global losses at $400 Billion.
[4] Havocscope Counterfeit and Piracy Markets by countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copytard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fashion News
==================================================
Fashion News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]