If you stroll through the mall today, especially in inexpensive stores like Forever 21, I can guarantee that you’ll see knockoffs of expensive designer pieces. Some of these knockoffs look pretty darn close to the real thing, minus differences in fabric quality and detailing.
I absolutely support affordable fashion, as I for one don’t have thousands and thousands of dollars to drop on this fall’s “must have” designer pieces. In fact, H&M is one of my favorite places to shop when I can muster up the courage to fight the crowds. However, I can’t help but cringe when I realize that I’ve seen that $30 military jacket parade down the runway in a slight more chic form a few months before. When I pick up pieces like this, I realize a designer’s blood, sweat, and tears have been transformed into eerily similar mass produced jackets.
Where should we draw the line? Or do we even need to draw one? Should inexpensive stores be able to copy top designer’s work and provide fashion pieces for all price ranges? Or should an artist’s work remain absolutely their own as they created and executed it?
Just yesterday, Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced a bill to protect designers against being copied. The proposed bill is rather limited and will require designers to prove that their design is not only unique but also that it was copied exactly. It’s certainly a step in the right direction for parties attempting to prevent anyone from replicating top designers’ work but it seems to me that there will be a lot of wiggle room within the law if it passes.
The bill is up for voting this fall.
Taking "inspiration" from other designers has always been a part of the industry, but counterfeits and companies like Forever 21 never managed to make a significant enough dent in luxury labels' market share to warrant any legal action. That's become a different story in the last 20 years. I remember reading this article in WWD in November: http://www.wwd.com/retail-news/trovata-forever-21-copying-case-set-for-trial-2101514
ReplyDeletewhich references “appearance as a whole of an article [of clothing]" rather than specific graphics, logos, or screenprints. Another step in the right direction.
That said, where do you draw the line? A bill that only protects against exact copies seems to serve little practical purpose other than sending a message that clothes are a designer's intellectual property. However, stricter regulation may open the courts to unnecessary lawsuits. For example, a few years ago I used to sell a certain green-striped mens dress shirt. Two seasons later, YSL started selling a shirt in the same fabric with a nearly identical cut. I would never have sued YSL, but poorly constructed legislation could potentially (and perhaps unfairly) have exposed them to huge risk.
Ownership of artistic ideas is a topic that interests me on an intellectual level, but so far as the ethics of fashion is concerned, unfortunately inhumane factory conditions still have devastating consequences for thousands of workers. While I'd like to see both designers' intellectual property protected and workers treated fairly, I hope to see us make more rapid progress towards ending human rights abuses in the apparel industry.