« Mid-Day Snack

Adventures in Copyright Aug 7, 2009 @ 11:56am

Adventures in Copyright: McQueen > Madden. Always.

Alexander McQueen made some super sick grommetted booties. Which we spotted on Mischa pre-breakdown.

We’re thinking they’re an ideal transitional shoe. The grommets take what is a fairly average bootie and make it amazingly sexy and edgy. They’re currently on sale for $900.

Then one of our sleuthing readers showed us that Steve Madden, the brand ubiquitous with stealing designs and parading them as their own, was at it again, this time attacking Mr. McQueen’s booties.

They’ve copied the grommets almost exactly, but, in a shocking twist, the Steve Maddens are suede! Wow. Congrats. Way to be original.

Lets just cut to the chase, the Maddens, with their massive platform and too big peep toe (if you can even call it that), are fugly. Don’t waste your money.

—MELISSA ELLIOTT

« Mid-Day Snack

Fashionista Main

Elise & Jen Embrace the Runway »

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 12:01PM

will admit the madden is fugly. but kinda prefer it in suede. not worth spending your money on either shoe. $900 for grommets, on sale. what is the deal with gucci group brands? they mark up their shoes to an unbearable level.

posted by AmandaMichele

Aug 07, 2009 12:15PM

I like the blue suede, I just wish the heel wasnt so cheap looking.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 12:32PM

maddens would have been better with studs instead of grommets.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 12:59PM

Agreed that the McQueens are much better, but the average reader doesn't have $900 to drop on shoes. Give Madden a little credit...While this particular execution failed miserably, he puts a lot of great shoes out there that people can actually afford and feel good wearing.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 1:18PM

OK, I agree that copying is wrong, but I don't get it when you guys take the nearly identical copy and go on about how fugly and gross it is. Its the same damn shoe

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 1:21PM

wow. they look great. wanna have it, but can´t afford it this month.

cheers,
tami
-
stylishkidsinriot.com

posted by Jean Voltaire

Aug 07, 2009 1:34PM

AHAHAHAHAHA. Loved this post! "Sleuthing readers" and the peep toe comment? Nice.

posted by KatLuvsShoes

Aug 07, 2009 3:02PM

If you hadn't pointed it out, I would have sworn it was the same shoe in different colors. Bigger difference when you put on a McQueen v. a Madden.

posted by nadienne

Aug 07, 2009 4:18PM

I think my biggest issue is that the grommets don't wrap down over the platform . . . throws off the proportions pretty badly, and that's part of what makes the shoe so appealing to begin with.

#5: good design is subtle. Proportions, as I already mentioned, make a huge difference. The larger peeptoe, although it doesn't look like much in these pictures, will make a very large difference, because you'll have alot more toe showing--and unless you're very dark, that contrast will show up and not look as attractive.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 4:54PM

Well I can understand your point to a degree. I personaly prefer the McQueens and I know that thematerials, workmanship,the heel,the peep toe and grommets are better. Yet there are many people who can not by $900 dollar shoes so perhaps they can find something similar cheaper, plus there is a long tradition of knock-offs in the fasion industry as is the case with these two shoes.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 6:42PM

I support the reasoning behind "Adventures in Copyright" but isn't it Steve Madden's shoe collection objective to create high-end designer inspired shoes for the masses? Being that it's like beating a dead horse to continously bring up his style copies.

http://amandasfashionspot.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 8:18PM

all i read was "i'm a elitist snob who gets my sense of self value and worth from a designer shopping bag"

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 9:44PM

I don't care. Both shoes are identically fugly, and I would never pay the $900 price tag, let alone twenty bucks.

posted by Signature9

Aug 07, 2009 10:51PM

The exposed platform and thicker heel on the Steve Maddens make a definite difference, not to mention the wider peep toe looks a bit frumpy. That said, still not sure I see $900 worth of shoe in the McQueens.

posted by guest

Aug 07, 2009 11:44PM

Don't like either, they're both fug.

And if they look the same, so what? Alexander McQueen doesn't have a patent on black leather grometted heels. How do you think trends happen? People always inspire each other.

posted by lauraloveslagerfeld

Aug 08, 2009 11:55AM

to all you people who are complaining about the cost of the shoes: if the maddens were more expensive they are still uglier than the mcqueens. end of.

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 12:28PM

They're both ugly.

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 12:57PM

well, it is a rip-off. I like the McQueen, but not $900-on-sale like. BTW, you can find shows like these from years earlier for cheaper. The Madden heel and cut of thr front doesn't help it at all.

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 2:24PM

Both ugly.. McQueens are MUCH better looking though.

But I have a question I've been meaning to bring up for a while on an AiC post:

Why do people knock people who wear knockoffs unknowingly? Like the people who just go into a store and buy something that they think is cute ...but don't know that it's really like a ...idk Lanvin knockoff or something?

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 5:07PM

#12, I agree COMPLETELY. I really hate the 'Adventures in Copyright' section. I mean, apologies if some of us love the look of something but can't afford the original! Fashion shouldn't be restricted to the wealthy.

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 7:05PM

well 20, us common people should save and scrimp until we can afford a designer "investment".

as many, many people have pointed out, everything is copied from something. nothing is really original. just look at this http://myfashionlife.com/uploads/elsa.jpg

looks as awful lot like some of the purses and wallets from dolce's f/w collection doesn't it? but of course, they are allowed to claim insparation and not get ridiculed for it, because thats how the fashion industry works. as i said earlier, their sense of who they are as a person comes from what high end designers they wear. its full if a bunch of people who sadly never grew out of high school behaviour.

posted by guest

Aug 08, 2009 7:11PM

^^^^^^^^ sorry try this link instead

http://www.myfashionlife.com/archives/2003/12/09/surrealist-couture/

posted by guest

Aug 10, 2009 11:45AM

Are you sure that copyright law protects fashion? I am aware of a couple of high profile cases - but to my knowledge - there is no settled law in this area. Could be wrong, but I would like to know your statute/case law for thinking that fashion is protected by copyright law.

posted by scoopcharlotte

Aug 10, 2009 3:20PM

well, let's see, are the steve maddens at least 10% as cute? Because they're about 10% of the original price. Infinitely prefer the McQueens. Will never afford them.

posted by grammyweezy

Aug 10, 2009 6:40PM

no. 20 and 21, the Adventures in Copyright posts are not just about taking "inspiration"from other designers, as no 21 points out, happens all the time. They are also about discouraging people from buying knockoffs because of the environmental effects of their cheap production, and the human rights violations involved in the poor labor practices of many of the companies that produce them. People are always flippantly proclaiming that they are going to go out and buy the Maddens, or the F21's or whatever, thinking that they're taking a stand against fashion snobbery, but they're just perpetuating the wasteful and damaging effects of disposable fashion.