posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 3:35PM

Don't you all have better things to do than sic Chanel, a multimilliondollar corporation, on a tiny Etsy seller? That's really lame, especially on a site that features "how to knock off X piece yourself."

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 4:03PM

It probably would've gone unnoticed. Of course you had to publicize it....

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 4:21PM

i agree. it's etsy. not forever 21. get over it.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 4:26PM

"What she doesn’t mention is that she’s using another company’s logo to make a profit. ... So if she can’t come up with any new ideas, we’d suggest selling that logo someplace other than the internet."

OK, she shouldn't be reproducing the logos (although personally, I don't know if I'd have a problem with her repurposing old *authentic* Chanel buttons with interlocking Cs for a charm bracelet, so long as she was absolutely clear that it wasn't a bracelet from the house of Chanel).

But to say "she can't come up with any new ideas" is pretty harsh. The logos are the only thing she copied. There is no genuine-article Chanel bracelet that looks like this, correct?

She's misguided, for sure, but probably just naive, so I'm not sure why the tone of this post is so angry.

posted by amandabug

Mar 27, 2009 4:36PM

they may not be genuine chanel buttons. i've seen chanel buttons sold at M+J trimming.

maybe instead of going after these smalltime designers who are being creative with the stock they find at local craft stores, go after the stores that's giving them the materials to counterfeit.

neither of them are right, but in this situation you know which came first.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 5:01PM

actually, it's permissible to use an authentic, trademarked item (the CC button) in an "artistic design," provided that the final product isn't being passed off as an authentic Chanel bracelet. this is why it's perfectly legal for "bling" designers to trick out Rolexes, etc. with copious amounts of diamonds and then resell them. however, it's questionable from the etsy post whether she's trying to pass it off as a Chanel bracelet. so...

regardless, i tend to agree that anti-counterfeiting energies are better focused elsewhere than etsy...

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 5:26PM

Fashionista this is pathetic. Aren't you above this?! I love the pretension...

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 6:05PM

eh, it's pretty clear from the girl's post that she made the thing herself, and she doesn't mention, or even slightly hint, that she has any connection to Chanel at all. and it seems unlikely that anyone would see someone wearing this and think it was an actual Chanel product. it strikes me as slightly absurd, in this age of billion-dollar embezzlements, to call this "stealing". i wish you would do more reporting-style posts on this issue. it would be more interesting to hear an actual analysis of the legality, or a comment from the company, or a legal expert, rather than just an indignant rant.

also, i sometimes wonder about what copyright permissions this site gets when you reprint entire articles or photo series from other publications.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 6:17PM

Its pretty obvious it isn't intentional especially since none of her other work is like that. Give her a break.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 6:29PM

It's an ETSY seller. You're going to far on this one. I doubt Chanel is going to do anything. Karl would be rolling his eyes at you right now.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 7:00PM

Like #7 I would tend to think that this could be covered by "fair use" as it is kind of a tribute to the person of Coco Chanel. Chanel the conglomerate has probably an entirely different opinion.
And as always you are on the side of big business. Why?

posted by guccigirl77

Mar 27, 2009 7:45PM

OMG wat the crap! leave the lady alone!

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 8:01PM

Ladies, get in touch with your readership! Read the comments above --- these kind posts are exactly what we are tired of. As someone has already pointed out, the way Etsy girl is using the logo is defensible.

This ''head girl'' attitude you guys have of ''oooooh its against the law, naughty naughty!'' is soooo tiresome. This site used to have - and still has, occasionally - thoughtful analysis on the business and aesthetics of fashion. Now more and more though, you are phoning it in.

Its arguably compelling when you are highlighting out young designers who are getting coopted by someone with a bigger name (eg Erin Wasson!). You are not compelling at all when you are defending a giant company like Chanel - or if you are going to defend them, do a more trenchant analysis instead of the same old drivel.

I used to read you daily, now I read you about once a month. I bet I'm not alone. Think hard about your audience.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 9:32PM

Theft is theft.

She is using a logo to sell a product. Unless she has a license it's a violation.

Trademark, copyright, licensing, intellectual property rights, etc. need to be understood.

Just because it's a small seller does not matter one bit.

She's profiting by using another companies logo without permission or a licensing agreement.

I'm so glad Fashionista has called attention to this.

Etsy is rife with intellectual property violations, copyright and trademark violations and outright design theft.

Thank you Fashionista!

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 9:37PM

...it's pretty clear that this is a tribute to Coco Chanel, not someone trying to make some money pretending to sell authentic Chanel. This post is stupid.

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 10:21PM

it seems to me that the responses to these "adventures in copyright" posts are frequently negative (i.e., your readers don't care for them/find them offensive)...perhaps you might wish to focus your energies elsewhere?

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 10:46PM

Just because people want to put their heads in the sand or make excuses for people who violate trademark, copyright and intellectual property rights this doesn't mean Fashionista should avoid the topic.

Again, thank you Fashionista for taking on the hard issues.

Don't let people who have no real understanding about how damaging this type of thing is dissuade you.

Thank you and keep it up!

posted by guest

Mar 27, 2009 10:49PM

Small sellers who are copied are the first to scream bloody murder, yet some of those same sellers who don't like to be copied have no problems stealing from other people.

It's very disheartening to have anyone try to excuse this type of thing.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 12:17AM

Fashionista, you are a bunch of snobs. What about fashion shows where one designer tributes another? Anytime anything slightly resembles something high end you girls go at it with a vengence. Classism.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 1:02AM

#19-it's not a copy.it's a handmade bracelet made with what looks like a vintage chanel button and photos of coco.pay attention wouldja before you go off.nevermind, you're probably one of the writers friends.

posted by etoilee8

Mar 28, 2009 1:40AM

I am usually so quick to defend you guys when all the people get their panties in a bunch of the Adventures in Copyright. I enjoy the feature, I have loved spotting how trends trickle down year after year (like my Marni platforms that _______ was so smart to copy this season . . . hell I might buy their version too, in black). BUT. . . this post is terribly mean spirited. I doubt this chick will make millions off the bracelets and it's almost as if you guys are praying that Chanel will stick her with a lawsuit over it. I mean what the hell did she do to you guys to deserve such a nasty rat out?

posted by my fall collection

Mar 28, 2009 2:11AM

yeah what 14 said.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 3:14AM

i think guests 15,17,18,19 and fashionista staff themselves!

regular people aren't that self righteous and probably wouldn't want you to "keep it up"

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 9:03AM

Ok well I think picking her up on this is little unneccessary, I don't think she means any harm, although I think if anything, fashionista have done her a favour because I just checked out her pieces thanks to the link and they're gorgeous!

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 10:53AM

to all you complaining about how mean this post is, why dont you go open up a mcdowell's and throw up some golden arcs and serve big mick's (as seen in coming to america if you havent seen that hilarious movie.) might as well right, that is what you are promoting.

posted by etoilee8

Mar 28, 2009 2:54PM

Guest 26, I hope to hell you've never have shopped at Forever 21, Nine West, Topshop or H&M because if so you're as much a part of the problem as any of us. That's what this industry consist of. . . trends and interpretations. Get off your high horse unless you only buy top notch designer (and somehow I really doubt that).

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 4:29PM

This post is defamation and slander against the etsy seller/artist. To purchase a product and attach it to other products and resell said products as one item is not a crime as long as the description is accurate. As long as the buttons and photos are authentic, no crime. Further even if the buttons and photos were unauthorized replications, art is protected by many laws in America.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 4:52PM

*yawn*
Yet another post where you guys prove you have nothing better to do with your time than bitch at innocent people.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 5:35PM

I hope the etsy seller sues you for slander and for unwritten use of her photos.
Does anyone notice FASHIONISTA never sources photos...because they probably never get permission, especially when they write negative things about them. FASHIONISTA stucks. Comment 28 has it right, fashionista's staff (all 2 of them) are bitches...i said it. Ugly bitches that bitch at people because they work at a fashion "blog" get off your high horse...let us see all the "authentic designer shit you wear...because I bet everything you wear is from some inspired by copyright stealing designer

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 6:29PM

This is a low blow to a small Etsy seller.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 7:57PM

Since you guys persist in posting these adventures in copyright-type posts, you should really like, take a seminar in intellectual property and copyright law. Maybe the folks at Above the Law can give you some pointers.

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 10:41PM

damn fashionista, yous a bitch. and not in a good way either

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 10:44PM

#24, i wrote #17 & am in no way supporting this post--in fact, just the opposite. i was telling fashionista to get rid of "adventures in copyright"!

posted by guest

Mar 28, 2009 11:46PM

Actually I don't find it offensive. It's very kitschy. Besides, this is not an attempt to imitate a Chanel good. Excusable. It's true Karl would be rolling his eyes on this one!

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 12:13AM

I doubt Karl really cares about this bracelet. Perhaps Karl will steal the idea himself and sell them for $10,000 come Spring 2010.

The thing that bothers me most about this post is how negative and nasty the tone is. Is it possible to comment on something you don't like in a more adult not quite nasty way? I just don't get the ugly tone that is often used by the editors of this blog.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 1:50AM

I'm starting to believe that Fashionista continues publishing these ridiculous "Adventures in Copyright" posts even though they get negative comments 90% of the time because of the hits!

I mean why else would they? Either they like stirring up controversy and raking in the comments, or they're just really stubborn. And don't care about turning off readers...

posted by austinsamuel

Mar 29, 2009 3:45AM

That is the bitchiest thing you have ever done Britt. It's like your in the 5th grade and want to suck up to the teacher.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 9:53AM

This is absurd. She's not passing it off as a Chanel piece. She (very clearly) states that she took iconic images of Coco and the logo and put them in little frames and added genuine mink fur. The fur is the only thing she is claiming to be authentic.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 10:02AM

I agree with 38 and pretty much everyone else who has commented. This post was mean spirited and pointless.

When similarities are found between high end designers and mega corporations you call it "Adventures in Copyright", but when its an itty-bitty Etsy seller its "Adventures in stealing". Harsh and defamatory.

I agree with 20 that this whole thing reeks of classism and I hope for your sake this etsy seller is too classy to take your pompous arses to task over this.

p.s you guys STEAL too much content to have this attitude about anything.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 11:27AM

So glad I dropped out of fashion school....Fashion is like high school. Petty, ridiculous, and shallow.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 12:38PM

first, these posts are lame. a designer is legally permitted to copy the design of a dress, shirt, etc. if the original designer does not patent that design. see cheney brothers v. doris silk corp. otherwise, only trademarks, like the chanel logo, etc. are protected. so genenrally, pointing out that a forever 21 top looks like another designers top is pointless. second, calling out an etsy seller like this is incredibly mean. why are you trying to take someone out like this? especially during an economic recession... get a life

i am done with this blog.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 1:30PM

I agree with pretty much...well, everyone that has commented so far. It is interesting to see how quickly alexander wang booties are knocked off by forever 21, but this is a tiny etsy seller who made one piece inspired by a famous and iconic person. Like 14 said, please assess the type of response these posts receive and get in touch with your readership. I've almost abandoned Fashionista altogether for blogs with less pretentious attitudes in their posts, like the Cut. Keep the elitism in check or I suspect other readers will do the same.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 2:28PM

to everyone who says it doesn't count because it's an independent seller, what if it was the other way around? what if chanel ripped off a small, independent designer's signature design - you'd be up in arms!

posted by austinsamuel

Mar 29, 2009 10:53PM

Umm #44 that is the stupidest thing someone has ever posted on fashionista. Of course we'd be up in arms you moronic imbecile - obviously because a corporation is expected to have its own creative originality (on account of hiring like a million staff) and not to mention their product reaches to practically ever corner of the globe. A small etsy seller in the scheme of things is the smallest fish in the biggest ocean, and therefore more susceptible to the giant sharks such as BRITT who are just trying to bring down the little guy (who in this instance did nothing wrong). Let's face it, she was probably selling the bracelet to pay her way through college.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 11:44PM

How about "Brace yourself Karl, you may want to hire this girl..."

It's a shame you are hating on this seller because I'd much rather see her creation in Chanel boutiques than the plastic-y crap they have now.

posted by guest

Mar 29, 2009 11:45PM

P.S. Since you guys are soooo fashionable and pretentious over there, why the eff are you shopping for Chanel on Etsy in the first place?

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 12:56AM

You should probably post an apology to your readers for wasting our time with this petty bullshit post when we are hear to read actual fashion journalism. I hate this type of post and I am close to ready to stop reading Fashionista altogether.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 4:18AM

Wow, I haven't visited this site in ages and now I see why. What a bad role model for what is sure to be many young women who read this website...

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 6:11AM

I'm so glad everyone else was as offended by this post as I was. Harsh.

Chanel also has had zero effect on counterfeiters, from what I can tell. I'm an American living in China and there are fake Chanel items on every street corner - earrings, bracelets, purses, necklaces - you name it.

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 30, 2009 10:20AM

I think this is the sort of thing that gives Etsy a bad name. There are scores of artists (disclosure: myself included), pumping out original designs on Etsy, and when this sort of thing pops up it's really disheartening. It's sad when designers try ride the coattails of established labels via knockoffs and stealing their brand-thunder - not to mention horrible karma.

It's one thing if she said "I repurposed pieces from an old Chanel jacket, added prints of Coco, and came up with this homage brooch - great for any lover of Chanel's classic style". That's different, albeit subtly, than what she's done here, which is market this piece as a replacement for the brand's original items, including illegal use of their trademarked logo. If she had instead created this without the double-C, as a complement (and/or compliment) to the work of the actual house, it would have been endearing and appealing instead of obnoxious.

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 30, 2009 10:24AM

@

"Of course we'd be up in arms you moronic imbecile - obviously because a corporation is expected to have its own creative originality"

Why is this expectation any different for an independent designer? Because they are struggling more financially? Because they are not in the spotlight? This is relative morality, from which nothing good has ever come.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 10:42AM

how is calling someone a moronic idiot, lame, pathetic, pretentious, stupid, snobs, self righteous, Ugly bitches, yous a bitch (and how could that ever be in a good way?), and pompous arses, just to name a few from this post, any better? the commenters who read fashionista truly are hypocritical among other things.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 10:45AM

you people are so hypocritical - it's NEVER ok to steal. whether from a major brand or an independent designer, it's NOT ok.

and austinsamuel - seriously? chanel should be original because they have money and a team of designers but a "small etsy seller" doesn't have to come up with her own designs? that's crap.

you're one of the few commenters on this site who usually provides insightful thoughts - please don't stop

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 12:15PM

But the only thing this girl stole was the logo. She didn't steal a Chanel design. And anyone who would look at these logo charms and think it was authentic Chanel doesn't know shit about Chanel, pardon my French.

Look, it's not OK to recreate a designer logo for your own purposes -- I think we're all in agreement on that. But the people critical of this woman's motives are so over the top -- why? It's almost suspicious. I mean yes, the seller made an error in judgment, but she didn't steal any designs!

I wonder if she knows about this discussion because it would be interesting to hear her defense.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 12:32PM

It's too bad that most of the commenters don't understand the difference between what Topshop and Forever 21 do (pieces that have a similar look to an original designer piece) and reproducing a designer logo, if it is reproduced. Topshop and Forever 21 do not put fake designer logos on their clothes.

I agree that if she is repurposing a real Chanel button and if the images of Coco are public domain, there's nothing illegal here. But if she's reproducing the Chanel logo herself and/or does not have permission to reproduce the images of Coco, this is illegal. Not the crime of the century, but illegal.

posted by etoilee8

Mar 30, 2009 12:44PM

She's interpretating Chanel guest 56. . . she never claimed to be Chanel. Don't tell me what I don't understand. And F21 makes some pretty close to actual designer looking pieces (minus the lux materials and hand tailored quality).

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 2:46PM

screw chanel as though karl is piss poor. i salute her. she's made a bracelet far more interesting than anything chanel creates in terms of jewelry.

leave her alone. she seems like a cool girl.

i am sick of karl.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 6:03PM

I'm wasting my time, but from this post and the ignorant, brainless coverage you had of LFW, I hope you stop posting in Fashionista. You are an idiot and after reading anything you write about, I feel dumber and mad at myself for having done so. Britt, you are a blogger, like the rest of the world & this pretentious "status" you feel you have is really amusing. Someone else used the Chanel logo?! Good God, thank you, you fashion-insider for notifying the lowly public of this GROUND-BREAKING, HORRIFYING news!!! fuck offff.

posted by guest

Mar 30, 2009 7:26PM

are you getting a kickback from chanel for spying? Who cares anyway if it is a ripoff, why should we fatten chanels already bulging coffers

posted by cristalmarie

Mar 30, 2009 7:41PM

i actually was nice and notified that person. .it was kinda creepy too cause she lives in my old neighborhood apparently..weird.

posted by fashionfix

Mar 30, 2009 11:16PM

dear britt,

thank you SO MUCH for calling this my attention.

if you didn't i would never have the opportunity to buy this beautiful piece...thanks!

b*tch.

posted by guest

Mar 31, 2009 1:08AM

This is how the Etsy seller is different from Forever21 and the people selling fake Fendis on Canal:

This seller is pretty obviously not intending to pass her work off as real Chanel. She's not a counterfeiter. She's made a homage to Coco Chanel, the fashion icon, and didn't get that while it's legally okay to use the Chanel logo in certain kinds of art like parodies (the Alex and Chloe Chanel spoof jewelry, for example), homage isn't a protected genre. This is because she's an Etsy seller and not a real LLC with lawyers to tell her stuff like this. The Etsy girl made an honest mistake...I feel badly for her getting all this public excoriation.

posted by LeMagnifique

Mar 31, 2009 7:56PM

Dear Britt,

Chanel has been known to copy among others jewellery designer Jessica Kagan Cushman thick scrimshaw bangles.
Cue the one-off bracelet that Cushman designed in retaliation: a one-off bracelet that reads in her trademark cursive'Ripped off by CHANEL'.

The Etsy girl should be very thankful for the wonderful publicity.

Lighten up.

posted by guest

Apr 02, 2009 3:32PM

She's not doing anything wrong if that's an authentic Chanel button. She isn't passing it off as a Chanel bracelet and you are allowed to sell goods that you purchase if you wish. If I owned a Chanel sweater, I could cut off all the buttons and sell them on ebay if I wanted to. That isn't counterfeiting. This really isn't any different than painting an authentic picture on a Vuitton bag, or adding some jewels and charms around the strap, and then selling it on ebay.

posted by guest

Apr 03, 2009 12:56AM

Wow way to go. I too am glad that everyone else here seems to be as disgusted with your article as I am. This poor individual does not deserve to be publicly reemed like this.

If you would actually look at her other bracelets, she obviously does theme jewelry and that's all this was. She probably put no other thought into it other than just yet another one in a series. She also could have a chance at getting away with using Appropriation, which is used frequently in the creative art world and is perfectly legal.

Plus since when does Chanel need any help from self appointed vigilantes like yourself? Chanel sucks as it is.

posted by guest

Apr 05, 2009 2:56AM

Why were you searching "Chanel" on etsy anyway... to buy something that resembled Chanel perhaps.