posted by guest

Aug 14, 2009 5:59PM

The reason people freak out on your adventures in copyright posts is not because they disagree with you showing the copycats, it's the haughty, better-than-you, "how dare you not eat ramen for months and spend $1000 on an original shoe" tone that accompanies them that people hate.

Besides, this book appears to deal with the entire concept of fast fashion that just happens to copy rather than actual copying. Seeing how you guys frequent shops like Zara, Urban Outfitters and the like, are you trying to criticize people who buy fast fashion or are you merely interested in analyzing your own buying habits?

posted by guest

Aug 14, 2009 5:59PM

The reason people freak out on your adventures in copyright posts is not because they disagree with you showing the copycats, it's the haughty, better-than-you, "how dare you not eat ramen for months and spend $1000 on an original shoe" tone that accompanies them that people hate.

Besides, this book appears to deal with the entire concept of fast fashion that just happens to copy rather than actual copying. Seeing how you guys frequent shops like Zara, Urban Outfitters and the like, are you trying to criticize people who buy fast fashion or are you merely interested in analyzing your own buying habits?

posted by guest

Aug 14, 2009 6:11PM

I actually adore the adventures in copyright posts because it shows me where to get the knockoff...it's almost an advertisement.

posted by maladroite

Aug 14, 2009 6:52PM

Haha, Love the comment #4.

The real must-read is "Deluxe:How luxury Lost its luster".

Its all about how the most of the high end designers aren't worth it anyway seeing as 90% of their items are made in China, and the quality doesn't match the price. So nowadays we really are more justified in not buying designer. I don't condone counterfeit goods, and I keep away from Canal St, but no one should feel badly for shopping at Zara, UO or what have you.

posted by maladroite

Aug 14, 2009 6:52PM

Haha, Love the comment #4.

The real must-read is "Deluxe:How luxury Lost its luster".

Its all about how the most of the high end designers aren't worth it anyway seeing as 90% of their items are made in China, and the quality doesn't match the price. So nowadays we really are more justified in not buying designer. I don't condone counterfeit goods, and I keep away from Canal St, but no one should feel badly for shopping at Zara, UO or what have you.

http://tdotfashion.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Aug 14, 2009 10:08PM

I echo commenter 4's sentiments exactly. Unfortunately, there tends to be little if no correlation between the price on the tag and the product's quality, workmanship, or working conditions.

If you're a fashion purist who can only sleep at night knowing your closet is full of only the hottest labels, that's one thing. It's quite another to naively assume that your $800 shoes were not made in a sweatshop adjacent to the Zara* sweatshop.

The other argument against fast fashion that I've never bought into is the environmental one. In my experience, designer or not, price has little to do with how long I own a piece or how long it lasts, with few exceptions. Some of my most durable and most-loved pieces are some cheap treasures I've picked up over the years at H&M, Urban Outfitters and the like.

*insert your favourite fast fashion chain here

posted by guest

Aug 15, 2009 6:55AM

and i think we've been over this before but why is it ok to make do it yourself articles in the same blog where copying is strongly criticized? oooh because you don't ask money and only enjoy it yourself? this world would collapse (or the fashion industry would) if we all did that all the time...

posted by williamwallace

Aug 15, 2009 12:25PM

guest number 8- you are missing the point of the diy section entirely. most of the diy features use items that people already have. it essentially encourages you to copy a designer, but to DO IT YOURSELF. i think any designer would be flattered to know that someone liked his or her (the designers) piece so much as to attempt to make it themselves. this is probably not the same when a huge brand does a shitty one-off of a designer's item.

while i may not be the biggest fan of the adventures in copyright feature, i do appreciate it for showing blatant plagarism that is rampant in the industry. i don't think that fashionista is trying to STOP you from buying things from certain places, but rather let you know the lack of original thought that went into a item that is ripped off from a designer. have you ever been to http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com ? it's basically an adventures in copyright website, but this site usually gets praise. i don't think that the two editors of fashionista are trying to come off as elists, they are just voicing their opinions uncensored. they've said it over and over again, but if you don't like it, simply do not read it. if you continue to come back time after time obviously fashionista is doing something right.

on another note, the problem that i have with the adventures in copyright feature (not to the point that i will stop reading this site entirely or leave useless bashing comments) is when designers with little original thought are praised. alexander wang is a fantastic designer and the style that he has created has been pretty brilliantly done. but i have never seen anything near-original from him. this does not mean i don't like him- he's the best at what he does. but when topshop or urban or whatever is accused of copying awang (or any designer with little original pieces) that's where the problem is.

sorry that was so hastily written!

posted by nycshoegal

Aug 15, 2009 2:00PM

I would write a new comment but guest #2 has already said it damn well in their 1st paragraph.

i think someone else also pointed out the environmental factor of fast fashion. And while yes, to some extent this is true (kind of like fast food restaurants are a disaster for the environment) but even designers are making way too many things and i'm sorry but the amounts of clothing the industry produces every year - the shows, the ready to wear, etc. etc. is pretty overwhelming too. So while i definitely agree we need to ease up on the consumerism - fast fashion is not the only one to blame and is definitely not the only problem.

and maladroite thanks for the "Deluxe:How luxury Lost its luster" tip. I will probably pick up both of these and read, as I'm sure they both have valid points.

posted by guest

Aug 16, 2009 4:20PM

I urge all of you to read Ms. Shell's book. It is neither about fast fashion nor plagiarism. It deals with the American mindset that all commerce should be accomplished as cheaply as possible; that everything should be had for a "deal." This ultimately drives the price up and creates an environment where quality suffers and the sweatshop is the only viable manufacturing solution. The book is about being aware of how commerce works and how easy it is to become its victim. The message is to be in the world but not to be of the world.

posted by guest

Aug 17, 2009 3:32PM

My issue with Adventures in Copyrights has always been the disregard of vintage. As williamwallace points out, as great as Alexander Wang may be, his entire output could be from my closet circa 1987. And A.Wang is far from the only offender on that front.

Obviously it's easier to point out that Designer X is being currently ripped off by Fast Fashion Store Y, but as a student of fashion it's far less interesting to me (because we all know that's the state of things today) than it would be to look through fashion archives, too. You could restrict AIC to Marc Jacobs alone and never run out of comparisons, given that his entire oeuvre is ironic repurposing of ugly sh*t from the 1960s and 70s!

posted by guest

Aug 17, 2009 3:45PM

I also heartily recommend the book "Deluxe, How Luxury Lost its Luster." I get set off by the "Adventures in Copyright" blurbs because, as a lobbyist for intellectual property rights, it makes my blood boil when people assume that the intellectual property created by others is simply there for the taking. I focus mainly on the patent realm but I also work to protect copyrights & trademarks.

I don't care if you're talking about a song, a movie, a book or a shoe design, the underlying IP is always the hard work and creativity of someone else. It BELONGS to someone else - for a limited time of course, there is a method to the madness of IP laws. For those who would steal IP, using lame excuses such as "I can't afford the real thing," or "they're rich and won't miss the income," etc... or even better yet, those who think that because they've bought one copy of something, that they have the right to make more copies and then distribute it to their friends...shame on you. Look up the meaning of the word "copyright."

Its one thing to be inspired by another's creativity, but to steal and copy it outright, I say bring on the litigation. I have no problem with a a fine of $800K for someone who illegally downloaded 22 songs. And once Congress passes the design protection law, I'll be the first to dance on the steps of the Capitol.

posted by guest

Aug 17, 2009 7:21PM

Sigh. My biggest problem with the adventures in copyright posts is that they are such a superficial slice of the issue, and fail to address the more subtle nuances of design evolution and what a copyright actually covers. And while I applaud that this post acknowledges that there are deeper issues involved, instead of actually reading the book and providing any original analysis, you merely excerpt from and comment on someone else's review of the book. Which is suspiciously similar to the strategy employed by fast fashion-makers you so enthusiastically berate.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2009 3:07AM

i second guest 2/3

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2009 3:07AM

i second guest 2/3