Yet Again, Evidence Of The Need For Fashion Copyright Is Totally And Completely Missing
from the a-complete-joke dept
For nearly a decade, we've been quite critical of the claim by some in the fashion industry (and a few law professors) that we somehow need a special "fashion copyright." We've covered in great detail why this is false. The whole point of copyright is to encourage greater innovation and output of creative works, and the fashion industry has that. It's highly competitive, with many players and new creative works coming out all the time. In fact, studies have shown it's this very lack of fashion copyright that makes the industry so innovative. That's because of two key factors. First, without copyright, the copycat companies help make the real designers' more valuable. By copying key designs and making cheap knockoffs, these copycats create the fashion trend, which creates an aspirational situation where more people want to buy the real version. Second, because of the lack of copyright, designers have to keep innovating and keep pushing out new designs, to stay ahead of the pack. It's a perfect example of where the lack of copyright leads to greater output and greater creativity.The only real argument for a fashion copyright, then, is because designers would like to be lazier. They don't want competition and they don't want to have to innovate at the same pace. But the point of copyright is not to make the lives of designers easier. It's to benefit the public.
Yet, every year or so, a small group of law professors and designers, with the help of a few politicians (mainly Chuck Schumer, trying to help out some New York fashion designers) push forward with another attempt to pass the law. Lately, they've been focusing on the "evils" of "fast fashion" companies like Forever 21, who quickly push out knockoff fashions of famous designers at a much cheaper price. They talk about how this is making those famous designers "suffer."
It turns out, that's simply not true. In fact, the luxury sector, including high end fashion is experiencing a massive boom, with revenues up 13 to 23%. But you know who's not doing so well? Low end retailers, who are having trouble in the recession. Supporters of the bill keep assuming that people buying the knockoffs are substituting them for the high end stuff, but there's little evidence to support that at all. In fact, these numbers suggest the exact opposite. People who can afford the high end are happy to pay for it. People buying the knockoffs these days are having trouble affording even that, let alone the original designs.
So again, we're wondering if anyone can explain what the reason is for any form of fashion copyright? It seems to make absolutely no sense at all.
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: copyright, evidence, fashion copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you really want to suffer....
http://wtforever21.com/
Take a good long look at what they are copying, and then wonder if there aren't bigger problems facing our country than is your leopard print sling backs are knock offs of a famous designers design.
I drag wtforver21 out early, before the mornings troll patrol... because once you see whats there... yeah you can't make any good arguments for fashion copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, it's only fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V V V
also, control freaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll agree that even these leading design houses don't have independent design at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without the Knockoffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without the Knockoffs
to put in long hours so the top 1% can get richer and buy more designer duds.
to keep us sedated, worrying about who wore what where and when, rather than looking at the handbasket ride we are all taking right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
Today they all copy each other on different things, and all follow the same trend. They make outlandish things to get attention, that no one will ever actually wear. They show pieces of the new hot trend for the season. The items will be cloned for the mass market, but they will never be as "special".
as to the 19th century my vast knowledge does not include 19th century fashion houses and how they worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
That's the point - if they were doing as well as the present ones then you would have heard of them ... Beau Brummel OH *****)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
And I don't care much about labels, I know some of the names because they do stupid things... Diane von Fürstenberg leaps right to mind - screaming for these copyrights while having to settle several times after stealing "unknown" designers work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
The reason for this is that they have the leverage of their fanbase - even that part of it that doesn't pay them - to establish their status on a par with those who buy their top end stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without the Knockoffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
Black socks and sandals never go out of style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
because they were never in style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
because they were never in style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without the Knockoffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism for Pointy-Haired Bosses:
1. Bribe politicians.
2. Watch as bribed politicians write laws that make your competitors go out of business.
3. Enjoy artificial monopoly.
Again, this has been going on for over a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The phenomena you describe is one found exclusively in planned or mixed economies where the government actually has the power and the social mandate to interfere in market affairs via law writing. Corruption such as this is, arguably, a natural result of having government regulation strong enough to affect real change for any purpose even if the original intention when granting the government said power was to benefit other groups. See: the FCC, FDA, FTC, ect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the morning shift of trolls is not here.
Maybe they had an accident during the car pool.
I hope they are ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lack of trolls is a bad sign...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This argument holds no water
I disagree. No one ever said that starting a business is easy. It takes some courage to put yourself out that way, and for all of the patents and copyrights in the world, new businesses of all kinds fail every day.
What I do know is what's more important is coming in with a well thought-out plan, and executing on it. Insisting that without artificial monopolies a business will fail is a false dilemma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This argument holds no water
If any thing it vanquish the small competitors from the scene that is what it is designed to do, to stop others and the others means the little guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because...
So singling out F21 as an example of a bad actor is a little disingenuous.
As DVF is pushing for this and has for years I doubt there is a single word in it that would stop her from poaching again.
And it doesn't matter if F21 copies an idea, if that young up and coming designer gets their product on the right face in Hollywood, they gain fame. See its not how many of your rainbow soled shoes you can sell, its about getting people to know that designer x did those awesome rainbow soled shoes... who else wore something they did. They are not trying to market the rags, they are marketing the mystique and allure of be like a star. Getting a potato sack on someone who can say to the camera I'm wearing Bagolot will do more than anything else they can do.
"there's just no way to measure the number of designers in this category who never "make it" because they are knocked off."
And we need a law to make sure that everyone can make it, and stunt an entire market to make sure that no one else can ever make a wrap dress because DVF has that on lockdown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because...
Therefore we can conclude that that number might be zero.
In fact I guess (and that is about all anyone can do by your argument) that it is zero - because I very much doubt that a designer small enough to fail in this way (ie not benefit from the publicity derived from the knockoff) would bebig enough for their work to be noticed by the knockoff trade in the first place.
This is fashion remember it is not based on either utility or aesthetic value - its only value lies in publicity and anyone who isn't smart enough to use the publicity that comes from a successfully knockoff shouldn't be in the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because...
So it fallows that no protections is better then protections that will most probably hurt him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's why...
There. I said it and I'm glad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You explained it perfectly.
They've made their money the hard way, now they want to sit back Scrooge McDuck style and watch the money keep coming in while they swim in it. Normal people, when they reach that point, they retire and do the things in life that they had been too busy working to do. Rich, greedy assholes though, the only thing they want to do is make money, and once they have some, they want to keep making it by doing even less to deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Take on Fashion Copyright
For many years, I've been quite critical of the claim by some people in the fashion industry (and a few professors of law) that we somehow need a special "fashion copyright." I've covered in some detail why that is false. The whole point of copyright is to encourage greater innovation and output of creative works, and the fashion industry has that. It's highly competitive, with many players and new creative works coming out all the time. Indeed, studies have shown it's this very lack of fashion copyright that makes the industry so innovative. That's because of two key factors: a) without copyright, the copycat companies help make the real designers' more valuable. By copying key designs and making cheap knockoffs, these copycats create the fashion trend, which creates an aspirational situation where more people want to buy the real version; and b) because of the lack of copyright, designers have to keep innovating and keep creating new designs, to stay ahead of the rest. It's a perfect example of where the lack of copyright leads to greater output and greater creativity.
Innovative, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Take on Fashion Copyright
See no need for government granted monopolies the market will take care of the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is always so easy to criticize something you generally know nothing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]