Quote:Part of the overall reason for undertaking this investigation of the fashion industry is to question the standard assumptions about the relationship between intellectual property laws and incentives to create that underly all of modern intellectual property law. The standard theory goes that if a creator's exclusive right to profit from the distribution of her work is not protected by law, then creators will lose the incentive to create, as "free riders" drive down the price of the work by filling the market with copies.
As the authors have discerned, this simply is not the case. Designers in the fashion industry (which also encompasses accessories such as jewelry)create for two reasons:
1. To fulfill the
need to create that lives in all creative people.
2. To make money and influence people.
Once a design is widely copied, it becomes mass market and no longer of interest to the original designers(except for those who only design for the mass market). They go on to create new designs and the cycle starts all over.
Designers
will defend their trademarks because these are associated with status---a counterfeit Fendi bag does not have the same status quotient as the real Fendi bag.
IMO, the trend is toward branding in this industry. In jewelry,for example, one of the big names is "Tiffany". They are no longer particularly creative or innovative--the reverse, actually---but they remain at the top of the heap because consumers buy the brand. There are many other jewlery designers (David Yurman comes to mind) who are really not very creative at all, yet continue to remain on top. A lesson to be heeded.
The conclusion reached by the authors, is that this cycle of designing/allowing copies actually induces a more rapid turnover of goods. A good thing.
Btw, intellectual property rights are and should be, much more vigorously defended by those in other industries;music, books, etc..
Great article, Mandy, and an interesting debate.
Just curious as to your opinion on this since you are also a creative person.
Copyrighting textiles has always been a gray area. It's hard to copyright a concept (An A-line dress, a spaghetti strap tank top, or a suit jacket), but it's easier to copyright patterns, sets, and special shapes.
The reason the fashion industry is more resilient to soft copying done by other designers--is name, recognition, and presentation. BRAND.
If someone invents the A-line dress, it likely came from something almost the same, from earlier clothing--so it's never totally original, anyway. If Designer #1 releases a version with their fall clothing line and Designer #2 and #3 do something similiar--but more in line with their own spin, all three designers can make plenty of dough, even though their products are only a shade apart.
Some people will ONLY buy Donna Karan or Banana Republic or Armani, or whoever. This ensures the product line, even with copycat products, always survives--as long as the BRAND is strong.
Knock-offs are a totally different story; where some sweatshop makes Juicy Couture bags--but isn't JC.
I think most designers do vehemently protect textile patterns and possibly color palettes, more than they do garment shape or generalized style. Since the fashion industry is so dependent upon a general style for the season, the designers have to do garment shapes in a similar way, or it won't sell to the masses.
Am I making any sense?
LOL. Yes. I do read Vogue.
Designers who do single, one-of-a-kind dresses or suits can probably copyright their exact design so people don't duplicate it. They should.
The same thing with people who do hand-painted dresses, specialty purses and shoes,e tc.
[quote author=thentavius link=topic=6098.msg33622#msg33622 date=1164502853]
Designers who do single, one-of-a-kind dresses or suits can probably copyright their exact design so people don't duplicate it. They should.
The same thing with people who do hand-painted dresses, specialty purses and shoes,e tc.
[/quote]
Right now, everything I do is one-of-a-kind. By the time it becomes a mass market thing, I am on to something new.If I were to worry about copies (difficult to prove anyway), I would just drive myself crazy looking for them. IMO, of course.
Edited to add:
Lol, I didn't see your first post.
Quote:The reason the fashion industry is more resilient to soft copying done by other designers--is name, recognition, and presentation. BRAND.
Exactly (and you put it so well)!
Quote:Am I making any sense?
LOL. Yes. I do read Vogue
Yes, you made excellent sense.
Nothing wrong with Vogue---how about "W"?
Quote:Right now, everything I do is one-of-a-kind. By the time it becomes a mass market thing, I am on to something new.If I were to worry about copies (difficult to prove anyway), I would just drive myself crazy looking for them. IMO, of course.
I think that's another reason they don't push copyright infringement that hard. I can see them doing it for perfume formulas, but not for a scarf that's only going to be around for one season.
I also check out Harper's Bazaar. I like those two because they have a lot of great advertising and design trends, as well as concept work. Great for computer and art design.
Fashion is also kind of fascinating.
Quote:I also check out Harper's Bazaar.
I used to read that as well.
I have to admit that after so many years of being in the fashion industry, it isn't nearly as interesting to me anymore (I used to LIVE for the Fall issues of Vogue and W, lol), although I do still enjoy reading the mags occasionally.