Adventures in Copyrights: Phillip Sings the Blues

Apr 29, 2008 @ 9:33am

We bet when Phillip Lim named his label 3.1, he didn't mean his dresses would cost under $31 dollars.

Still, that's what's sort of happening, thanks to the copycat masterminds at Forever 21.

The scheming stealers recently put up this "rosette dress" for $29.90, but of course, that's not where it originated:

Phillip Lim stuck it on his Spring '08 runway, and now it resides on Net-a-Porter - for $595.

Too much for a silk shift?

Absolutely.

One more example of an innovative designer getting royally screwed?

Yes, that too.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 9:58AM

I saw the 3.1 version in person and let me tell you, it is absolutely gorgeous.

The Forever 21 copy looks trashy and cheap, more so than usual.

posted by HauteTopicTumblr

Apr 29, 2008 10:15AM

I wouldn't give them the title "masterminds." Lazy, uncreative, opportunists is more like it.

posted by leia

Apr 29, 2008 10:39AM

I tried this dress on this weekend! It totally looks cheap compared to the 3.1 version. If anyone is thinking about ordering it, it runs REALLY big. I usually wear a L at XXI but I needed a small (It was huge in the armpits)

posted by fay

Apr 29, 2008 10:39AM

I don't see why, if they're such "masterminds", they can't come up with some more original designs.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 10:48AM

Hey Fashionista - love your site. I'm fairly fashion-savvy, but not nearly as much as most of your very well-informed readers. I have an honest inquiry - not at all meant to inspire venom of any kind, so I hope everyone will be kind.

I'm genuinely curious about the arguments against knocking off certain fashions/designs so that they are more accessible to "the masses"...so for example, how does it hurt a designer whose dress sells for, say, $1,000 to have a knock-off out there for $50? Granted, a lot of knock-offs are ugly and horribly made...but for argument's sake, let's say the knock-off is semi-decent. A $50 shopper is never going to buy a $1,000 dress...so there's no direct consumer competition.

I do understand the concept that perhaps its not fair for a giant company to make tons of money by stealing cool designs, while the original designer makes nothing. I get that. But what about from the consumer side?

I also get that perhaps having a cheap $50 version out there diminishes the "value" of the designer original, and maybe then high-end consumers won't want to buy that original...but I do think thats a bit of a stretch.

I think it might be interesting to do sort of a point/counterpoint on the issue of knock-off designs. You're all very informed on the issue, and I'm ready to be convinced one way or the other. Just seems like a more complicated issue than its made out to be...

Having said all of this...the partnerships between big name designers and mass retailers like Target seems to be an interesting way of getting around this issue...providing high-end design en masse.

Ready, discuss!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 10:51AM

Um... it's not like the same audience that always shops at F21 is doing a lot of shopping at Net-a-Porter... I don't really believe that anyone in the market for a new designer dress is going to go out looking for that style of dress, love it at Phillip Lim, and then decide to go to Forever 21 and buy it cheaper. In that sense they're not really "screwing" Lim out of his business. His target audience is way way different from the Forever 21 set. I'm not advocating blatant copying like this, but I don't think you could say that Forever 21 is luring Lim's would-be customers away with cheaper versions of his dress. In the end, I doubt Lim will lose out financially because his creations are being knocked off at some cheap chain that most of his clientele wouldn't set foot in.

posted by Faylinn

Apr 29, 2008 10:52AM

The Forever 21 version just looks like a sleeveless mumu. I agree with guest 9:58AM, the color is just horrible.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 11:09AM

And to add to this lively debate...

I love fashion and I love reading about it but I'm nowhere near informed as most other fashionistas - mostly b/c my fashion education comes from slacking off at work. Otherwise, I don't have time to figure out that a cute dress I saw in the shop was actually ripped off a designer. I have to dress myself, and I'd prefer to dress myself cute than just wearing simple basics to avoid accidentally wearing something that was ripped off. The only time I realize something is ripped off is if it's listed here.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 11:33AM

"One more example of an innovative designer getting royally screwed?"

Um...
This dress is not innovative
No one is "screwing" Philip Lim. No one is going to buy the F21 instead... All it's going to do is contribute to helping 3.1 be part of the larger cultural zietgeitz, which will only help him in the long run.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 11:33AM

Okay, I work in a fashion store and personally sold this Phillip Lim dress, in blue and as well as green and champagne. The dress works because it is a heavier material that makes it hang nicely, which I doubt the Forever 21 dress does. Thats the biggest problem with knockoffs, they overlook the one technicality that makes a great design work, whatever that may be.
That being said, the dress was very cute, but not cute enough for its price tag, and I'm kinda excited Forever 21 knocked it off. It probably won't look at all as nice in person.. but I'm still excited to go try it on and see.
(P.S. Fashionista girls, in your response to a Hills episode asking since when Audrina wears Phillip Lim, Lauren was referring to this dress which she wore to the last Season's Finale).

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 11:54AM

I've been lusting after the Phillip Lim version in Regal Emerald Green for many-a-months now...I'm stalking it online, in preparation for Sale Season...

Upon seeing the F21 Version, I was prompted to throw-up a little in my mouth- Not only was the shiny sheer poly reminiscent of stripper attire, the craftsmanship on the floral work paled in comparison.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 12:58PM

because absolutely nobody has ever done a blue trapeze dress before..

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 1:23PM

Guest at 10:48 - try using the search function. This topic has been discussed to death on Fashionista.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 2:23PM

the people at phillip lim must know that the blue is much prettier than the yellow and more in season than the grey cause it's more than $100 more than the other colors.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 2:50PM

The Phillip Lim dress is beautiful, but really not all that innovative - he just combined a few very trendy trends (the color, the shape of the dress, and rosettes) that are pretty much everywhere right now. What, exactly, is innovative about that?

Where do you draw the line between a copycat and someone just following the same trends?

http://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod18220005&parentId=cat212702&masterId=cat30005&index=4&cmCat=cat000000cat000001cat000008cat30005cat212702

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod55120138&parentId=cat14750760&index=1&cmCat=cat000000cat5160748cat7680740cat10130733cat14750760

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 4:53PM

As someone who shops at Forever 21 quite often, I don't understand why you are constantly attacking their knockoffs. I, for one, love Adventures in Copyright because I like knowing when I'm buying blantant knockoffs, even if I don't really care. I think you need to face the facts. I'm a sixteen year old girl without an income who is leaving for college soon. I can't afford a $1000 dress, and anyone implying that I should buy one over a Forever 21 knockoff is ludicrous. In fact, I wouldn't even buy the Forever 21 dress because I like my Forever 21 purchases to be less than $20.

Ultimately, Forever 21 is only helping the luxury fashion market. In a decade plenty of girls who started out by shopping in their stores will either marry well or earn money of their own, and then they'll drop cash on the real deal. Until then Forever 21 keeps us small town girls from looking Hollister/Abercrombie clones.

posted by hannah

Apr 29, 2008 5:53PM

Guest @ 4:53, a-freakin'-men!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 6:57PM

Is the dress a rip off? Sure. But, what is the difference between ripping off an idea from a famous designer and being inspired by small unknowns who just sell their stuff in little boutiques? Designers don't work in a bubble.

posted by ElleWoodsHerself

Apr 30, 2008 1:11AM

"In a decade plenty of girls who started out by shopping in their stores will either marry well or earn money of their own, and then they'll drop cash on the real deal."

1. I'm seriously appalled that you put "will marry well" before "will earn money of their own." Is this what 16 year olds think now? As a law school student I'm not exposed to kids except on the subway - I'm hoping that is a view exclusive "small towns."

2. I do not see a connection between buying a rip off of a designer piece and **gag** marrying well or making money later and buying the real thing. Stay informed about fashion on sites like this and print media. If you keep buying the knock offs, the designers aren't going to be around by the time you marry for money. Then what? F21 will also be out of business, because they wont have anyone to copy from. (And, G-d forbid you'd have to be inventive on your own).... Do I think that F21 crap is a market replacement for designer goods? No. A person who can afford Phillip Lim is not going to F21. BUT, that isn't to say that the designer image is not seriously cheapened. What keeps designers from throwing up their hands in disgust upon seeing these knock offs in the store windows of Wisconsin? After research, hundreds of hours on design, investments in technology and fine fabrics... to see some 16 year old wearing your design to a football game in the middle of Arkansas.

3. Lastly, in response to the argument that fashion should be accessible....Did you ever think about buying a sewing machine and making it yourself? You wouldn't be supporting the morally repugnant operation that is F21 and you might actually learn something about your own personal fashion and **gasp** spark some creativity within yourself. It may seem archaic to you, but it shouldn't, since your views on women don't seem to be modern in the least.

posted by neenersh

Apr 30, 2008 4:34AM

A copyright is a copyright but I am like minded of other posters who say Phillip Lim is not going to lose money over this. Most Forever 21 shoppers have no idea. Besides I agree with Guest at Apr 29, 2008 6:57PM, the dress could have been designed without any ideas that another dress was being sold that is so similar. It's a pretty basic design. I mean I'd rather have the Phillip Lim but honestly I wouldn't wear either. I find that shift dresses such as these are made for pixies only. If you have any type of breasts the drapery just make you look fat, no matter how small your tummy or limbs are.