posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 3:02PM

I second guest #1...Really Fashionista? Band jackets have been around since before you were born and just because Balmain made them trendy again doesn't mean they have sole rights to their production and distribution.

I highly doubt any of you at fashionista could afford a full-priced Balmain jacket so I don't see where the snobbery comes from.

Not to mention that you have an entire DIY section devoted to recreating looks...in case you've forgotten about them, they live here http://fashionista.com/diy/. So, the question is why is it okay when you do it but not okay when anyone else does?

posted by darcykins

Apr 29, 2009 3:13PM

i really miss the DIY posts.
Even if I never actually tried any of them it was fun to see other peoples attempts at recreating expensive looks for less.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 3:19PM

The whole practice of reinterpreting high end designer options for the masses is nothing new and has been part of the industry forever. New York fashion industry was built on the whole premise of reworking French haute couture at a much lower price point.

From a lawyering point of view, taking these things to trial would be fun.
Lawyer to the Designer: What is a bias cut?
D's Lawyer Cross Examining the Designer alleging infringement: Did you invent cutting fabric on the bias?

Seriously, the thought of Balmain or another designer being able to copyright or attempt to litigate copyright violations will destroy the industry. Young designers will tip toe into the industry or not enter it because they will fear litigation. If they are sued they will be bankrupted by court fees. If it does not go to trial they may be strong armed into settling and they will be bankrupted. Established houses will own a monopoly of ideas and use that power to threaten, intimidate, and inhibit a great deal of creativity.

I just think from a realistic point of view copyrighting fashion designs, apart from prints, is a stupid idea that will do more harm than good.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 3:40PM

okay so on a lighter note.. i think that Target is getting a little ahead of themselves to think theyre even that elite to be able to replicate a Balmain ensemble.. the vest is clearly a copy of the first look from Philip Lims ss09 show with the asymmetrical band vest. a double breasted denim jacket with a peplum at the shoulder would be a closer copy to Balmain as far as i'm concerned

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 3:43PM

I thought the Target one was more like the 3.1 Phillip Lim vest than Balmain. Not that I care about the copies. Just based on the fit and bandjacketness...
http://www.eluxury.com/estore/browse/product_detail.jsp?program-id=780&ad-id=57&id=12208378
xo Cari http://isnotfashion.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:01PM

Here, here! I second Guest #2

posted by formerlyknownasguest

Apr 29, 2009 4:01PM

While I do find the 'Adventures in copyright' series entertaining I find this post to be really petty and gauche; it's a poor display of your professionalism. While I get that Target is not on Fashionista.com's radar I can't help but think you would jump to go to one of their events (I mean you guys covered a Puma event, which really isn't that great of a brand if you want to be elitist).

I can only imagine the amount of pitches/press releases you receive daily as the seeding that occurs is bananas but have some tact and keep that shit to yourselves.

posted by shharvin

Apr 29, 2009 4:04PM

band jackets have been around forever. when are you going to call out balmain on it?

http://seamsandstitches.blogspot.com/

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:08PM

i think you guys are all missing the point of this post.
it is not about target ripping off balmain, (which i think even britt agrees is a bit of a stretch) but that target's PR team is crazy enough to think it would be a good idea to send this story to a blog that has garnered a bit of a reputation for its "adventures in copyrights" posts.... ridiculous, no?

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:21PM

Reading comprehension, only guest # 10 seems to have it.

posted by chicprepster513

Apr 29, 2009 4:33PM

i third the DIY posts!
they were awesome.
bring 'em back fashionista!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:45PM

affordability is what more than half the country cares about right now. props for those who can buy $$$$, for those who can't, these others don not look too shabby. Fashion makes people feel pretty and is personal... I know plenty of 'istas that can pull off $4 tees and rock them. I can appreciate all views, I guess.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:48PM

I really hope fashionista responds to these posts...many good arguments!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:55PM

guests 10 and 11 probably work here
there always seem to be 1 or 2 back to back comments defending them :x

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 4:55PM

Well played, poster 10! THAT is the point, not cheap, fast fashion, Michael Jackson, or Mr. Lim.

PR 101: know your media and who you are pitching to.

posted by Britt Aboutaleb

Apr 29, 2009 5:06PM

guest 15: I'm the only one who works here and any comment I leave clearly has my name on it!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 5:26PM

Oh golly when are we going to realise that these adventures in copyright posts are DESIGNED to raise are heckles and get everyone commenting (good for stats). We (I) fall for it everytime...sigh

Please bring back the diy posts and I promise to click on that instead.

p.s If you are reluctant to bring back the diy posts because you realise its a bit hypocritical in light of your (mostly misinformed) copyright vigilantism, I (we) promise to look the other way ;-)

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 5:35PM

So, what's the difference between being "on-trend" and being a rip-off? It often seems that if something is a cool designer product, it is labelled on trend, and if it's from a more affordable, mainstream producer, it is written off as a rip-off. Please tell me you're a little more substantive than that.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 6:34PM

Hey Britt,

You answered guest 15's post but you never answer any other comment on these Adventures in Copyright posts, which is very frustrating.
A LOT of people (YOUR READERS) are expressing their disagreement, and I just don't think it's fair to just ignore it.

Just a thought!

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 8:35PM

I think the publicist that sent the e-mail obviously has a sense of humor, I thought it was funny ..lol..I guess I'm the only one..

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 9:14PM

The thing that's really incredible here is that target is a consistent advertiser on this site, meaning that a.) target is definitely on fashionista's radar, despite consistenly irrelevent comments on here claiming otherwise (which I think is the reason, guest 20, that so many comments on here go ignored), and b.) fashionista is seriously committed to covering this issue as much as possible, which is especially admirable in the current economic climate, especially since so many people quickly (and rather densely) associate a budget with the right to buy knock-offs. Which brings me to my next point- the only thing more annoying than the copyright-related posts (which I happen to think are really important) is the number of useless comments left where intelligent conversation should instead engage. Leaving "this is so tired" comments about copyrights on fashionista is like leaving "there no such thing as global warming" comments on an environmentally conscious site- you only prove fashionista's point, that the issue needs to be hammered in for the conversation to hopefully evolve into meaningful action, as it already seems to have started.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 9:41PM

i doubt twenty or so comments represent "A LOT" of fashionista's readers

and they're going to do posts about rip offs until people stop ripping each other off. get over it.

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2009 9:46PM

i don't mind the "adventures in copy right" posts, honestly you see the item and your thinking the exact same thing

posted by RashomonRebel

Apr 29, 2009 11:28PM

Has Marc Jacobs ever been in any "adventures in copyright" posts? Because that motherfucker BLATANTLY rips off MMM and CdG all the fucking time! Dude should be held without bail on his stupid ass tattoos too!

posted by austinsamuel

Apr 30, 2009 4:42AM

Who gives a fuck if anyone rips off anyone.

They're are three types of people in this situation:

Tacky bitches who will buy the fake.

Stylish people who can't afford the real thing so whinge about the fakes.

Or, filthy rich people who can afford the real thing, and the idea of a fake doesn't even cross their mind, because the fake would never find itself walking into their social circle.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHICH PERSON WE ARE.

posted by Donald

Apr 30, 2009 9:09AM

I have to agree with #1 and #2, it's a status thing...Balmain isn't accused of ripping anyone else off even though all they've done is dredge up old looks and slap a chic name on it.

posted by Donald

Apr 30, 2009 9:12AM

It was actually pretty clever of Target to send the pr to Fashionista. I know next time I'm at Target I'm going to look for their version.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 9:48AM

#25, you need to relax. seriously.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 11:44AM

Silhouettes and trends are cyclical and will come and go forever, but the point here, is that someone from Target actually admitted they're copying >specific

It's a bit of reverse psychology, non? 'Yes, we're copying them, but look how affordable these are!' Just because they're admitting what they've done doesnt make it right.

Good call Fashionista

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 11:58AM

26 you are funny!

posted by sterrious

Apr 30, 2009 2:22PM

and you did exactly what they wanted: giving them publicity on your site. Is that what you intended to do? Really Fashionista?

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 2:34PM

#26 is the only sane one here.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 2:40PM

oh boy, 32, a little overly excited at piecing together the obvious pun? please, take your skills to your school paper, banality really fits in better where everyone's still young enough to appreciate it (please forgive me if you're older, i don't mean to make fun of someone who is verbally challenged).

so anyway, back to the point: publicists really need to learn about researching publications before pitching the editors. also, to the people saying that no one should care because it's been going on since forever: should we say the same to PETA concerning fur? and what if that argument had won when, say, women tried to get the vote for the first time? i realize these are more extreme examples, but sometimes it helps to go to the end of the spectrum to shed light on the problems in the middle.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 3:32PM

ok, first of all, that vest is more Phillip Lim than Balmain.
Secondly, I think that Target was just trying to publicize a trend at reasonable prices, which is pretty much what they are known for, I go there for cheap stuff and so does everyone else. No one is confusing the target customer with Balmain's.
Thirdly, clearly some junior publicist or intern decided to take the 'blogs and social media' route to promote their stuff, and I can't help thinking how much trouble you got them in by writing this stupid and completely unnecessary post.
Lastly, sorry to get personal, but I'm so disappointed with Britt, I actually really liked her when she first started writing here. Now, she just seems like a stuck-up and patronizing fashion bitch. Fashion is fun, not elitist, Britt.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 3:38PM

I checked on the target website where they had been selling for $35, but they're sold out. I than looked it up on eBay and they are on there selling for twice their original price, so obviously Target has something good on their hands.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 4:06PM

There should be a rule that you have to read the story all the way through to leave a comment.

Britt says the vest doesn't even look like Balmain's jacket and that that's why fashionista didn't Adventure-in-Copyright it even though it's been ALL OVER the internet for the past couple of weeks.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 4:16PM

Amen to #35

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 5:18PM

I got a vest online and it was not great and looked cheap. I don't care if it looks like Philip Lim's or Balmain's, the point is, it looked like a cheap knockoff which in turn just made me feel cheesey.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 5:20PM

Sorry - to finish my story above, -- i returned it.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2009 5:25PM

i thought Target picked the right audience by contacting this site....few people reading this site are foreign or so wealthy+sheltered to have never been in a Target store.

certainly, this site isn't so elite as to ignore puma (wasn't there a puma post?) or nine west (i've seen many ads for this brand here). as well, they have posted about target's temporary store in nyc and the many guest designer collections that target has had.

Also, #26 is hilarious
and it definitely looks more like the phillip lim vest but i think the intent of the design was to reflect the balmain jacket. ironic that making it a vest and not a jacket meant it was a copy of another designer...lol, i wonder if F21 will use that argument...

posted by etoilee8

May 01, 2009 2:23AM

I think this post is brilliant. I thought it was a brilliant move on Target's part because they knew fashionista would buy into it. And I don't think it's bad for either business. Fashionista has something to write about, Target got the publicity they desired. Everybody wins! So someone tell me why so many people are going apeshit over this?

posted by guest

May 01, 2009 11:42AM

Well here it is folks. I am an advocate of this type of legislation and hope that one of these years, Congress will actually pass the darn thing. I know that some of you have good arguments for NOT passing this kind of IP protection, but honestly, when you see something as blatant as a Birkin rip-off, why the heck would you not offer some sort of protection to designers. Patents and trademarks can only go so far.

>>HR 2196
Sponsor: Delahunt, Bill (D-Mass.)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 17, United States Code, to extend protection to fashion design, and for other purposes.
Cosponsors: 17 Total (12 Democrats, 5 Republicans)
Last Major Action: April 30, 2009 — Read twice and referred to: House Judiciary. Congressional Record p. H5060

posted by guest

May 01, 2009 1:56PM

And what happened, Fashionista? You wrote about the vest. Guess it was an effective PR pitch after all.

posted by guest

May 01, 2009 11:10PM

have all the fashionista readers had a bad day?
WHAT WRONG WITH ALL YOU GUESTS? CALM DOWN