The Copyright Debate

adventures in psycho comments.jpg
We love Jezebel’s brazen swipe at the Copyright Debate:

Doesn’t our Congress have anything better to do than ban wealthy women from having their textiles copied - usually badly - by chain stores? Isn’t there health care, education, infrastructure, and a very snarled war to resolve instead?

We think the answer is yes and no.

Obviously, genocide and civilian slaughters should get top priority with government officials. But just because there are worse things happening in the world than copycat fashion doesn’t mean it shouldn’t get addressed, at some level.

Breaking counterfeit laws is still wrong. What’s right is Jezebel’s wish that “fashion [were] an engine of jobs that could actually be reasonably held by people whose parents aren’t real estate moguls.” But even though many mid-market clothes are priced too high - and many fashion salaries are too low - it’s not okay to steal, and that’s what’s happening.

There are other issues at stake - the fact that street style is constantly copied by designers, so why shouldn’t the street swipe it back?

But ultimately, we should all be rooting for the death of copyright infringement, and here’s why:

It’s going to be better for you.

If Forever 21 and H&M are forced to make their own designs, we’ll start to really see mass fashion compete with runway fashion, because it will probably be just as innovative, exciting, and new.

And if mass chains need to hire good designers - not ones who copy the runway, but ones who challenge it - there will be far more jobs for incredibly talented kids without “parents who are real estate moguls.”

Root for it - or at least consider how great it could be.

posted by guest

Aug 10, 2007 4:09PM

Well put!! I never saw it that way.

posted by Katie

Aug 10, 2007 4:26PM

Totally agree! Oh, I have visions of fabulousness at F21 dancing in my head...

posted by WendyB

Aug 10, 2007 4:37PM

I agree. There are some instances (TopShop, H&M, Steve Madden) where it's really gone way too far. The pieces aren't "inspired by"....they're identical but poor-quality copies. I really think it's arrogant to steal someone else's successful idea so obviously. Fashion designers are always going to "borrow" from each other but this is beyond that.

posted by leia

Aug 10, 2007 4:48PM

I am all for this legislation but I am concerned about the implementation of it. Nothing irks me more than when I do shell out my hard earned money on a brand like Marc x Marc, only to see it knocked off in XXI or Urbn. But......I think there are a lot of blurry lines here. I agree that DVF should be flaming mad when XXI knocks her off blatantly, but there are times when something is "inspired" more so than "copied".
So who decides the difference????

posted by BB

It's not going to be better for "you" if you are a designer. The proposed legislation is protecting specific designs, not mere trends that can be interpreted. Proof is the point made in the article that Ralph Lauren had to pay $400,000 to YSL. Ralph has never designed anything, he merely copies classic stuff and that time the design was blatant enough that he got caught. This legislation will not effect older designs, just blatant copies of new designs: a specific cut of a specific garment for a limited time frame. This usually will mean the work of newer, more innovative designers, who could use some protection.

My problem with the argument that copyrights are evil is that a country like China, going directly from communism to some out of control form of capitalism, has never had the growing pains that the West experienced - when patents, copyrights, labor laws, and pollution regulations that developed to protect workers and designers. Witness the deplorable state of worldwide poisonings this attitude has fostered, let alone the rip off market in CDs, DVDs and handbags.

Fashionista should be about supporting designers, not the powers that be who run the chains, just so you can have your cheap fashion fix. It's really just more of the 'Wal-mart is cheapest, so it's best' attitude ruining the US.

Aug 10, 2007 4:49PM

BTW, I love the jpeg name of this post ;-)

posted by biba

Aug 10, 2007 4:51PM

i concur. and when i think about it, all my clothes combined cost less than my tuition. thanks!

posted by h

Aug 10, 2007 4:55PM

Love the caption on the picture. Very funny. You guys deserve combat pay after this week.

posted by Lily

Aug 10, 2007 8:15PM

Damn. Thanks for setting us all straight.

The reason we have crappy clothes at reasonable prices is because all the reasonably priced stores are knocking off couture.

So, if Congress tightens the intellectual property laws, and goes after stores like Forever 21, then Macys and Nordstroms will be freed up to start selling interesting clothes made from good fabrics that are well-cut and fit.

I so totally get it. Especially the part about how designers can steal from each other or street fashions. Just as long as they price it outside our reach.

I'm going to throw away all my cheap sunglasses now, and go spend many hundreds on a pair with a designer label.

posted by Sarah

Aug 10, 2007 9:35PM

1) there's a distinct difference between inspiration from the street for designers and blatant stealing by fast fashion retailers of designer collections.

2) "mass fashion" will never compete creatively on the same level as high fashion because the average consumer doesn't give a shit and won't pay more for some fancy ideas about innovative design when all they want is practicality.

3) one style fits all is still the cheapest, most efficient, and appeals to a wider, more apathetic consumer base.

4) F21 & H&M hiring creative designers will up their prices. People only buy F21 because it's a cheap and quick alternative to trends.

Aug 20, 2007 7:27AM

High fashion is more than just clothing; it's 3-D art. If someone copies art, it's a counterfeit. Why should fashion be any different?

May 27, 2009 10:11AM

hi all,

the point of copyright isn't to go after the wrong doers but to make sure the creator of a design get rightfully paid for their design. copyright wasn't created to protect people from getting hurt, it was created to make sure they get paid! what this new legislation will do is just make sure that young designers who get copied by the masses get the royalties they deserve from the masses. if you copyright your design, the masses will have to request permission to use the design and pay them royalties on the sales. this way young designers will have easier ways of staying afloat and will actually have a chance at succeeding in this insane fashion industry.

that's it from me.