posted by adristar

Apr 15, 2008 1:11PM

i don't think that the "adventures in copyright" are really as negative or controversial as you guys seem to. really, is there any such thing as new or original ideas? granted, blatant logo ripoff, or tacky attempts to cash-in on a successful design (ie. fake crocs! ew!) are in poor taste. but i don't think one should feel guilty for buying an item that was "inspired" by another version. just because a label made something iconic, it doesn't mean that you are betraying them buy getting a similar design elsewhere!

does that mean that we shouldn't watch any reality tv, because it would be a betrayal to the original reality television show? (if it's even possible to agree on the "first"!) a poor example, i know.

could i say that chanel owns the LBD? and if it's not chanel, it's a ripoff?

posted by PJH

Apr 15, 2008 1:23PM

I think what this shows is how influential Chanel really was/is. Every time I've been to a thrift shop, I've found a million quilted bags, which all have their roots in Chanel. I think Chanel's reach was so big that it changed the lexicon of fashion. That said, I'd still rather buy the real thing.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 2:10PM

You've started posting far too much adventures in copyright. Am I the only one who doesn't really care what Forever 21 are doing? And who would rather read about what designers ARE Doing? This blog is supposed to be about the fun side of fashion. Leave the business side to MBA case studies.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 2:24PM

I think that AIC overlooks the fact that not all of us can afford to "pick up an adorable miu miu sweater" when we're out shopping, but might still appreciate the work of certain designers.

Also, I think the cut-off age for rompers is about 23. I don't know the age of the romper-buyer in question so this isn't a critique, just an observation.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 4:05PM

Seriously, where does "influence" end and "ripoff" begin? This looks like influence to me.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 5:32PM

i have a hard time believing that chanel was the first to EVER think of making a quilted bag. that knock-off in particular is really not that bad. sometimes i think this blog's "adventures in copyright" are a little overzealous. i have no problem with protecting creativity and i'm fully aware the problems that the seedy counterfeiting industry creates, but what's so awful about letting people who aren't mega rich be stylish too? i've seen much worse than this, i don't think this bag quite crosses the line into tacky knock-offdom.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 6:18PM

I agree. There have been a lot of "adventures in copyright" lately, and not even clever ones. Forever 21 and the like have been blatantly ripping off designers for years now- no news here. Why don't you document more streetwalkers wearing these disposable fashions in interesting ways or something. Because if it really has become such a epidemic as this site would suggest, Id love to understand the implications of it...not just point and throw a fit.

posted by guest

Apr 15, 2008 8:37PM

Woohoo!! I 2nd almost all the comments.. Let's move on Fashionista... jeez!!

posted by guest

Apr 16, 2008 3:24AM

well, in defence of asos, the point of them existing is so that lesser mortals can buy supposedly celebrity-alike clothes and accessories. but still, copying chanel? there shoyuld be a law against that!

posted by Fassion

Apr 17, 2008 6:46PM

Hell, that bag doesn't even look as good as the "Fake" Chanel bags I've seen! Hahahaha