That pose has been done time and time again…maybe the overall feel of shoot, particularly with the washed out, almost sepia-like colors give it a feel of similarity, but I don't think this ad is gonna do much to hinder MiuMiu's sales, audience, or appeal…not to mention, isn't imitation supposed to be “the sincerest form of flattery”? I think sometimes (and I hate to say this cuz I love this site, but…) you guys are plagued by a bit of hypocrisy. I can remember an instance wherein someone has pretty obviously knocked something off or made a look-a-like of it, but you guys referred to as paying homage or being inspired by.

As for the bags looking alike…they don't. The proportions are WAAAAY different, the overall design details are different, and the color is even different. And even in that extremely small photograph, you can tell that the quality of the Prada's leather seems to be much higher than the other bag. Meanwhile, since we're on the topic of copyright infringement, the Prada looks more like a Chanel quilted bag than the other one looks like the Prada.

Yup, and they both look like Chanel bags, too. 95% of your blog is wonderful, but you ladies should really stop harping on the copyright topics. You aren't very well educated on the issue and it shows. Fashion thrives on taking inspiration from itself and other art, and financially the entire industry BENEFITS from having lax copyright rules. Hello, um, trends? You loved Alexander McQueen's last collection and it lifted art directly from a Hieronymus Bosch and other artists. And, there's nothing wrong with that. Its how art works.

Watch this recent TED talk by Johanna Blakely about how the free culture of fashion leads to innovation and profit. Then please, lay off the copyright posts.
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lesson…

there is an ad out that is very much inspired by terry richardson's nakey purple story that had all of the models naked and he was in front and they were all turned to the side like a bunny hop, though there was no hoping….hehe…..anyhow…

No disagreement about how important money is to the industry. The constant progress of trends is what keeps fashion so profitable, and it does this by constantly recycling and taking inspiration from itself and the creativity of others. The Miu Miu bag is beautiful and it is very reminiscent of a Chanel bag (to which you say nothing.) Fashion constantly looks to earlier designers, decades, films, street fashion etc. for inspiration, then makes money off a new collection, new trends. Sometimes you say homage and sometimes you say stealing, but either way, for fashion's bottom line the flexibility is a good thing.

Lauren…no, quilting does not equal a Chanel bag. But in this case, if you honestly can't see that this Prada DOES look like a Chanel – in fact, it looks more like a Chanel than the La Diva bag looks like the Prada – then you might need your eyes checked, Sweetie.

Of course if you break down each part of the ad, you can say that the Miu Miu ad isn't that original, and therefore La Diva can't be copying it (the pose, the lighting, the quilted bag, etc.). The point is that the ad as a whole, the combination of lighting, pose, etc., was designed by someone at Miu Miu, and La Diva obviously filched it.
And will people PLEASE give it up with comparing this situation to designers getting inspiration from artists. Alexander McQueen potentially taking inspiration from an artist from the fifteenth century is NOT the same thing as a company producing a knock-off of a designer product within months of it's release.

Buffalo jeans

cheers rashy!

you found it!

if you guys want a real adventure in copyright, there is a new boutique up on bleecker (erm…by that random little bakery/coffeeshop – not angelique but this other one- and that chocolate store pure dark) that has DIRECT, and i mean direct ripoffs of the miu miu cat and sparrow prints. in the store. now. identical. GOOOOOO

If I could interject in this tiny spat, since the laws in the art world were invoked I felt a necessary urge to contribute.

Copyright laws as they are applied in the art world and in the fashion world are both similar and different. But in the end of the day, the way the real world works has little to do with the law itself but the dynamics of the art and businesses at hand. For the most part, what happens is a matter of complicity that typically divides the 'high' from the 'low,' or the 'fine art' from popular/ commercial culture. In the 'established' art world, copyright has been a big issue particularly since the late 1970s, as what we call 'appropriation' is what others may call 'stealing' or 'copyright infringement'. There is therefore a sort of silent code of ethics around this echelon or type of art in which artists would never sue one another; for example, Paul McCarthy 'ripped off' Jeff Koons with only the most positive of results & words passed between the two. Problems arise when 'high' artists appropriate photographs or texts from popular/ commercial culture, which often leads to law suits that the commercial artist almost always wins; Koons was involved in a suit brought against him in an example such as this and lost.

In fashion, a similar standard exists, but mostly to protect the commercial aspect of it. Here is where a difference emerges…the way copyright is applied in fashion may be different from the art world, mostly due to the issue of commerce– mass produced (even if luxury and produced in limited quantity) vs. unique works arguably requires different handling. But like the art world, higher end fashion designers tend to turn a blind eye to their work being 'appropriated' by others of a 'suitable' context. We see this all the time…I have personally paid a small fortune for a Marc bag that was a clear 'rip-off' of a Marni bag that would have cost me a large fortune. At the same time, DvF and Anna Sui suing H&M is a matter of both controlling their market (ostensibly, they are trying to reach a similar market, advertising in similar magazines, for example, or operating with similar if not smaller advertising budgets, or any other myriad of business concerns, unknown to me) as well as controlling their context.

A funny story on the topic…
Several years ago I represented a fairly well known artist named Larry Rivers, who died a few years ago but was a central part of the late AbEx/ early Pop scene based in New York (was friends with all the greats…Pollock, Warhol, etc). I got a call one day from someone at Vogue, who saw an ad for a Rivers exhibition featuring new paintings based on fashion. The young lady had no idea who Rivers was and told me, in a very threatening tone, that I needed to ask my artist to 'cease and desist' because he was ripping off a known editorial spread by Herb Ritts that had been commissioned by Vogue….and emphasized that Mr. Ritts would be 'very displeased, and perhaps pursue legal action,' if he ever saw this pictures. I told her thanks and that I'd let Mr. Rivers know. I called Larry…who in turn called Herb Ritts, who was enormously flattered that the older artist appropriating his images, and we all had a laugh over the cliched level of ignorance and lack of knowledge about art that abounds in the fashion world.

So I think you're right to continue doing posts about copyright…but in the spirit of V's concern, I implore you to consider actually having a cool, copyright (and fashion) savvy attorney give you some casual advice on the topic when you do such a post. There are plenty of them in this town, and I'm sure they'd be delighted to contribute to such a great blog, get the free publicity, and help further educate your readers.

He's single too…
http://bonduke.com/

p.s thank you so much for finally picking an avatar.

I had one all along, it just never showed up! Disqus is wonky.