Would Fashion Copyright Have Made Kate Middleton's Knockoff Wedding Dress Illegal?
from the oops dept
Right after the big royal wedding a few months back, Susan Scafidi, the law professor who is one of the leading supporters of putting in place a totally unnecessary and economically damaging "fashion copyright," used the wedding to support her arguments for fashion copyright. She suggested how unfortunate it would be that Kate Middleton's wedding dress would now be knocked off and used by other brides. It seems the "Kate Middleton's dress" example is popular among supporters of fashion copyright. In the NY Times, Steven Kolb, director of the Council for Fashion Designers of America (the main organization pushing for this bill), described Kate Middleton's wedding dress as the perfect example of what fashion copyright could protect:Mr. Kolb said that Kate Middleton’s wedding dress would probably be a good exampleInteresting. Except... as Johanna Blakley points out, it turns out that Kate Middleton's dress... was a knockoff itself!
We’d all like to think that we can recognize newness and originality when we see it, but it’s actually quite hard to do. Even Steven Kolb, who is completely immersed in the fashion world, had trouble choosing a good example of a dress that is different from all designs that have preceded it.And, of course, there's really nothing new under the sun in many of these cases. For example, some people have pointed out that both dresses appear quite similar to the dress worn at another famous royal wedding... over fifty years ago. See the photo below of Grace Kelly marrying the Prince of Monaco:
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: fashion copyright, kate middleton, knockoffs, wedding dress
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is very similar to http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copyin g.shtml - vague similarities are not the point of any rights protection system, even if some think it might be.
Perhaps Mike you can be a little more consistant. If you are going to mock the photographer, why not mock the guy who claims these two dresses are the same? Oh, wait, I know, because you are trying to make an anti-copyright point here. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously.
Or else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The two dresses have some common features, in very general terms, but even an untrained eye can clearly see major differences. Further, the Grace Kelly dress is nothing like it at all, except perhaps for the use of lace for sleeves. Even then, it's a reach.
The two dresses are two blues songs. They are similar in nature and general tone, but one is singing about losing his lady and the other one is singing about losing his job. You can find similarities if you work hard (similar to Mike's other post), but the differences are very clear as well.
Too bad Mike can't seem to decide which side of the debate he wants to be on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If fashion copyright had existed as regular copyright does today, neither Middleton nor Orsini (nor countless other brides, c'mon, this is not exactly a bold new design here), would have any choice about their dresses: the design would be locked up in damn near perpetual copyright and any attendant lawsuits whether they were "infringing" or not.
Copyright, as it stands and is abused today, will not help designers at all, it will tie their hands and squash their expression with totally unnecessary litigation. It baffles me why such a vibrant and creative industry would want to impose those shackles upon itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1st, the Kelly dress and the other two are not particularly similar at all, except for the use of lace sleeves. The Kelly dress most significantly features horizontal cloth orientation over the stomach area, which is very different from the other two. Also, the other two are using the lace sleevs and shoulders are support to create a plunging neckline, where the Kelly dress is for all intents a strapless dress with lace decorations. There are some similarities, in the same manner that there are similarities between blues songs. But they aren't the same song.
2nd, you assume that the copyright holder would have no interest in licensing out their designs. One of the keys of copyright (and patent for that matter) is that the only time it turns into money is if you use it or license it. Just holding it up isn't really in anyone's interest.
Basically, the Kelly dress would not be a copyright that the other dresses would violate, and in extremist, there is no reason why they wouldn't license the design anyway.
So sorry, nothing would be "locked up", except perhaps your Techdirt muddled view of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonFail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AnonFail
They are white, with lace, and sometimes shiny objects.
Besides, IF I were ever to remarry, I would want an LCD covered dress that could stream w/e content I wanted to it during the wedding!
Patent Infringement on Multiple Levels!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AnonFail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The key to copyright as it is actually used is that it turns into money if someone else uses it and they can be sued for infringment. Suing for infringement is easier if it is locked up and no one realizes that the copyright exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet time and again, we see copyright holders sue rather than license. Why do you ignore this, or assume it would be different with clothing?
Basically, the Kelly dress would not be a copyright that the other dresses would violate
Time and again, we see copyright holders stretch interpretations of similarity, copying, fair use, and idea vs. expression. Why do you ignore this, or assume it would be different with clothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this is exactly the problem. Where is the boundary? Does Isabella's designer get to claim all dresses with a split in the bodice? What if the split in Kate's dress is 9cm long, and Isabella's is only 8? If the original dress used thin silk, is it the same design if the new dress uses lace or sheer cotton? How far off from pure white does the the dress need to be? What if Isabella's designer claimed copyright, and someone discovered an even older dress that was very similar?
IP holders almost always try to claim the broadest possible rights. Proponents of the fashion copyright law claim that the proposed law is specific, but if you try to apply the currently proposed law to this situation (assuming copyright law had covered Isabella's dress) then it is clear that the law still leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The only possible outcome is a lot of lawsuits with judges and juries trying to decide whether one neckline is too similar to another. No one wins except the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the juries who get paid time off work to look at attractive women with plunging necklines ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that someone thought they were similar. The validity of the claims of similarity is completely irrelevant because, if there were a fashion copyright, the validity would be irrelevant. If someone says they're similar and that someone is the copyright holder you give in to whatever they demand or you go to court regardless of the validity. That is the point being illustrated here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We can make all the ones that are originally cream into a whiter shade and the white ones cream. Also we will move the neckline down or up 1 inch.
Thank god these fashion copyright laws are so open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would that be unfortunate? The value and prestige of the dress had nothing to do with the designer or even the design, and everything to do with who wore it.
She is an idol and someone people wish to be closer to. If a woman wanted to wear a similar dress to the one that Kate wore, how would that harm anyone?
It wouldn't harm the designer, as I'm betting it wouldn't harm the original designer. He was probably paid handsomely for that dress, not to mention all the press coverage and free advertisement he got from being the dress designer for the royal wedding.
It wouldn't harm Kate, as her day is done. Why should it matter if women around the world fell in love with her dress and wanted to feel even more like a princess on their wedding day by wearing a dress similar to the one she wore?
It wouldn't harm consumers, as they KNOW they aren't getting Kate's wedding dress. And as wedding dresses are already inflated in value, I don't see how buying a dress that looks like the one form the royal wedding would drive the price up too much higher, or if the women would even care if it was.
It wouldn't harm the fashion industry, because as long as people are willing to buy the industry will keep going forward. In fact, if women do want a knock off Kate dress, then it could help the industry by creating revenue streams for new designers.
So, I guess it boils down to Susan Scafidi using sentiment for a moment that the world shared as a shameless plug to push her own agenda.
To Susan Scafidi, I have one thing to say: Facts or GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fashion copyright is not enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!
Instituting region restrictions could also be a lot of fun and, if governments got involved in enforcing these things, that trip through security could leave you naked not just for the trip through the body scanners, but for the whole flight. I can hardly wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time-traveller?
sometimes she dies her hair.
she maybe a vampire or highlander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
"the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
I think this post falls in that category. You are so desperate to troll...it is sad, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
If you think Mike has gone off the deep end and is somehow not allowed talk about these kinds of things, then STFU, GTFO, and start your own damned blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
A company would have to be highly innovative to come up with something that is entirely new. If it is a process (say a way to stitch invisibly backwards with a twist) it wouldn't be copyright but rather an issue for patent. So we are only talking appearance here, and most of the appearance has already happened in other ways.
Basically, Mike is creating the old "tempest in a teapot" thing, and ignoring the reality of a huge, huge, huge public domain in clothes design that would pretty much make it impossible for anyone not to hit prior art. But that wouldn't be a very good story for Techdirt, would it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
Oh because big name designers can sue the shit out of anyone who comes up with anything remotely similar that is more popular, because despite prior art if you don't have a few thousand grand laying around to defend yourself in court than it doesn't fucking matter you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
They could likely very narrowly copyright Kate's dress, but a similar dress with even a slightly lower neckline might not be the same dress. The copyright would likely apply only to exact duplication.
"Remotely similar" wouldn't work, because all the remotely similar stuff has already been done. Prior art and all that, they can easily say they are copying this "public domain dress" without issue.
I don't even think that much of it would get near a court, because of how few new designs are actually truly new and not a riff off a past design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
You're still missing it. You can sit there and write that, but if it was you getting sued, you would have to prove your case in court. That's extremely expensive, even if you're right.
I don't even think that much of it would get near a court
Then you haven't been paying attention to copyright issues, or you're stupid, or you're lying. Introduce copyright, and these issues will go to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
Stupidest...
Statement...
Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fashion Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fashion Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fashion Trolls
And just to show my heart is in the right place, I'll start buying t.v. seasons and movies again once I'm absurdly rich ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fashion Trolls
patent 6002-607
for "pants made primarily of denim"
^ look at me innovate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fashion Trolls
Don't bother, "Intellectual Ventures" is already working on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to have to sue Google for that!
Actually I thought it was a reasonbly common style, and ther are millions and millions of wedding dresses out there, how could you not design a dress that is similar to others?
P.S. I've trademarked the colour "white" and the words "wedding dress" so you owe me some money Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did you say similar...
So nothing is truly original, these claimants were just the first to claim, patent or copyright it. Which gives them the ability to exploit it. It's just a matter of time before the air we breath is taxed or licensed to us. Greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike a supply of new books, music and movies, I doubt most people would consider a supply of creative clothing important to society. It amounts to planned obsolescence, which generates an amount of waste matched by few other industries today. Also, once you start placing more value on the creative aspects of clothing, the other aspects such as construction go to crap, which they have. Today's clothing is cheaply made and falls apart quickly. That's okay because you are expected to continually re-buy everything in order to stay "in fashion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]