>> When Diane von Furstenberg was reelected president of the CFDA earlier this year, the one goal she specified she had for the organization was: "We’d like to pass the law against counterfeits and copying."
A bill that came to the House of Representives last year died after clothing manufacturers argued that protection against knockoffs would only encourage litigiousness — people arguing over who had the idea first. Yesterday, Senator Charles Schumer introduced a new bill, supported by both the CFDA and the American Apparel & Footwear Assocation (the latter had argued that the House bill would expose its members to lawsuits).
The proposed bill provides limited intellectual property protection to the most original design, and a designer who alleges his work has been copied must show his design has “a unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior designs.” It also has to be proven that the copy is “substantially identical” — so close to the original that it can be mistaken for it. The bill would cover all fashion designs, including handbags, belts, and sunglasses, for three years after the item is first seen in public (at a fashion show, for example). Color, patterns, and graphic element are factors that can't be used in determining the uniqueness of the design, and a celebrity-worn dress likely wouldn't pass for protection.
Senator Schumer said he expected the bill to be passed in the Fall, and as Cathy Horyn points out, if the bill goes through, "the bar is extremely high to determine what qualifies as a unique and distinguishable fashion design. And the burden is on the innovative designer . . . Perhaps the upside for American fashion is that [the proposed legislation] will encourage designers to be more innovative."
Killah
Betsey Johnson
4 Comments Post a Comment
this is getting out of hand. It's ridiculous...
this is retarded....people are always going to be getting inspired by other people....im sorry but not every 10-25 year old is making enough money to be able to buy Mrs. DVF's threads...lets be serious in this economy the last thing on my to buy list is a $375 DVF dress that i will be wearing one time to a wedding of some sort for this year.....thats why stores such as forever 21, h & m, zara are thriving..its giving "us" people who as this point can not spend a grip load on designer clothes a little glimpse of somewhat inspired designer clothes...i mean you would think these designers would be flattered about this..maybe even hearing a young girl say..." i coudnt afford a real dvf dress so i bought this one that looks SOOOO much like it... so it feels like im wearing one of hers" like how could u not help but feel flattered that this young girl cleary cannot buy your dress but will buy one at a price she can afford but that reminds her of your dress....
i dont know im just sayingggggg
stop being so stingy and just feel flattered....
I do think the issue is more of exactly copied products sold at the likes of Canal Street that damages the fashion industry, feeds the crime and drug industry and can result in damaged brand image.
"It also has to be proven that the copy is “substantially identical” — so close to the original that it can be mistaken for it,"
So this hardly applies for products INSPIRED by the design, but a clear copy. Designers work hard to come up with original designs in this extremely competitive industry and for some of the high street brands to go and copy them exactly and stive off someone else's work is rather nasty.
As long as it is just an inspiration along the same lines, nothing will be done, so all the young girls at H&M can still have their designer-aspiring style - just not EXACTLY the same.
So basically these designers are completely affronted by people who COPY their handbags in Hong Kong but see it as a legitimate part of the business to get INSPIRATION from other people's work.
True inspiration is abstracting ideas from life, not buying up competitors collections and photographing students work and reproducing them. These designers basically want the freedom to keep copying patterns, colors and designs from people who have spent a lot of effort originating them, while complaining if anyone ever copies their work. It's such hypocrisy.
The fashion design business will collapse if ALL work is respected. This law is intended to stop knock-off goods while still allowing designers to continue to cannibalize itself. Any originality by a student or small designer has no chance of being protected and will be ripped off by the bigger houses, just as their work is ripped off on Canal Street.
We have no manufacturing and soon, there will be no reason why new design talent will go through the hard work and expense of training when their work will be just ripped off at the end of it. That's when those same CFDA members will say design is stagnating and lacks originality, because their free source of ideas will have been cut off.
Washington doesn't want to pass this bill because it is full of double standards. The CFDA should make this a campaign for respect and protection for everyone who comes up with a new idea, not just against fake goods and protecting big firms' profits.
In 1840's Manchester, the government stopped textile designs from being copied by introducing copyright protection and the result was better respect for the designers, money for training and an increase in sales. It's a pity that 170 years later, when faced with the same issues the key players lack any foresight
Adrian Wilson
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.