Adventures in Copyrights: DupliKate, Continued

posted by guest

Aug 30, 2007 10:51AM

kate's is the left

posted by jc

Aug 30, 2007 10:58AM

i am preety sure kate is the left

posted by kelsey

Aug 30, 2007 12:38PM

I doubt TopShop will sue before it sells out--this copy of a Celia Birtwell for TopShop halter has been up for several weeks:

http://www.forever21.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=FOREVER21&category%5Fname=FashionTop&product%5Fid=2040966927&Page=all#

posted by Simone

Aug 30, 2007 1:25PM

I, too, would guess that Kate's is the one of the left. Though, I think I prefer the shape of the one on the right. It seems as though it would be more flattering to one without a Kate-like body. :)

posted by WendyB

Aug 30, 2007 2:55PM

@ Kelsey, Considering all the Celia Birtwell pieces for TopShop are knockoffs of pieces by Celia's late husband Ossie Clark, TopShop really doesn't have anything to complain of regarding that one!

http://wbjewelry.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-minds-think-alikeabout-ossie.html

posted by Jen

Aug 30, 2007 3:23PM

I was at Forever 21 last night (Union Square, NYC) and I saw that dress. I couldn't place it, but I KNEW I had seen it somewhere before. It looked so cheap I didn't even bother going up to examine it. Also, in other copyright infringement news: they were also carrying a bag VERY similar to the Anna Corinna city tote... Basically the same thing, but in dark purple and a few gold studs. I COVET (and cannot afford) the AC bag, and I really had to talk myself out of buying that because I couldn't bring myself to carry such an obvious knockoff. Sigh.

posted by kelsey

Aug 30, 2007 3:36PM

@ WendyB, but the Kate Moss dress is a knockoff of Versace, as stated above, so exactly how are the situations different? Besides, that particular piece is done in a Celia Birtwell original print (she designed the prints, he designed the clothes), which is the main reason it is recognizable as a knockoff. Whether or not the generic halter top shape was originally designed by Ossie Clark is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

posted by WendyB

Aug 30, 2007 4:58PM

I'm not sure I'm following you, Kelsey. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing, aren't we? Everyone's knocking everyone else off, so no one can't point fingers, especially TopShop, and TopShop knows it. Isn't that what you were saying? On the separate Celia/Ossie issue, while Celia certainly did the prints, that doesn't necessarily mean she's legally entitled to use them. The Ossie Clark name was sold, and one could raise questions about what intellectual property rights were sold with it. But far as I know, the people who could press that issue have opted not to do so. Also, if you look in the middle of my Ossie post that I linked above, you'll see a TopShop dress that's identical to a 1971 Ossie...I wouldn't call that example of a generic dress shape with a Celia print. It's a clone. But anyway, that's what TopShop does and as I also say in that post, at least the clone has an unusual degree of legitimacy due to Celia's involvement.

posted by kelsey

Aug 30, 2007 7:07PM

^^I guess I misinterpreted your first post. However, I wasn't commenting on the entire Celia Birtwell for TopShop line, only on the particular piece that was copied by Forever 21 which IS a generic shape and IMO noteworthy only for the print.