Comments on: Counterfeit is the New Black: Copyright, Fashion, and Forever21 http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/ An Online Law Journal Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:55:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: My Collar Is Popped http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/comment-page-1/#comment-2347 My Collar Is Popped Wed, 26 May 2010 16:03:02 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/65#comment-2347 see also <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/26/why-the-absence-of-c.html" rel="nofollow">this short vid at boingboing about inspiration in fashion design</a>. see also this short vid at boingboing about inspiration in fashion design.

]]> By: Steve http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/comment-page-1/#comment-2166 Steve Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:24:37 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/65#comment-2166 Walter Olsen <a href="http://overlawyered.com/2009/06/design-piracy-prohibition-act/" rel="nofollow">has a post at Overlawyered</a>, discussing a new US bill designed to extend copyright protection to fashion designs. Go over there and read it.<blockquote>A bill to extend intellectual-property concepts — and litigation based on those concepts — into the world of fashion and design is pending in Congress. . .</blockquote> Walter Olsen has a post at Overlawyered, discussing a new US bill designed to extend copyright protection to fashion designs. Go over there and read it.
A bill to extend intellectual-property concepts — and litigation based on those concepts — into the world of fashion and design is pending in Congress. . .

]]> By: Tara http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/comment-page-1/#comment-608 Tara Thu, 29 May 2008 05:21:32 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/65#comment-608 Good points! Thanks for the insight. Good points! Thanks for the insight.

]]> By: steve http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/comment-page-1/#comment-607 steve Wed, 28 May 2008 17:40:43 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/65#comment-607 hey Tara, thanks for the comment. The problem with price-based limitations on copying is that if the law protected $200 jeans, someone would inevitably try to bust Gap for selling similar products at $20. We can draw distinctions between different cuts and styles of jeans (stonewashed vs. dark, high waist or low, button fly or zip, boot cut or bell bottom), but what would stop someone from "designing" an exhaustive library of possible styles, and then suing anyone else who tries to sell pants? This is essentially Bill Patry's argument against the proposed DPPA- it would be far too easy for a company with good lawyers to use it not just to protect their products, but also to drive low-cost sellers out of business. You might try to limit the law so that it only prohibited copycats in the same price range, but that wouldn't solve the problem of cheap knockoffs undercutting the original designs... so that would be kind of missing the point. As I understand it, independent designers are behind the AAFA opposition to the DPPA- too many independents are concerned that the law could be used by the big design houses to crush smaller competitors. Since every pair of jeans looks at least a little bit like every other pair, the proposed law doesn't really do a good job determining whether a given design is something entirely new or just another knockoff. hey Tara, thanks for the comment. The problem with price-based limitations on copying is that if the law protected $200 jeans, someone would inevitably try to bust Gap for selling similar products at $20. We can draw distinctions between different cuts and styles of jeans (stonewashed vs. dark, high waist or low, button fly or zip, boot cut or bell bottom), but what would stop someone from “designing” an exhaustive library of possible styles, and then suing anyone else who tries to sell pants? This is essentially Bill Patry’s argument against the proposed DPPA- it would be far too easy for a company with good lawyers to use it not just to protect their products, but also to drive low-cost sellers out of business.

You might try to limit the law so that it only prohibited copycats in the same price range, but that wouldn’t solve the problem of cheap knockoffs undercutting the original designs… so that would be kind of missing the point.

As I understand it, independent designers are behind the AAFA opposition to the DPPA- too many independents are concerned that the law could be used by the big design houses to crush smaller competitors. Since every pair of jeans looks at least a little bit like every other pair, the proposed law doesn’t really do a good job determining whether a given design is something entirely new or just another knockoff.

]]> By: Tara http://www.thelegality.com/2008/05/28/counterfeit-is-the-new-black-copyright-fashion-and-forever21/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Tara Wed, 28 May 2008 16:57:40 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/65#comment-606 Great article! I've always wondered about the legal implications of this. I think it would be interesting if there were laws protecting clothing once it reaches a certain price. If you're spending more than $50 for a t-shirt or more than $200 for a pair of jeans, you're not buying it just for the function of clothing- you're buying it as an art piece or to make a statement. And don't get me started on womens' shoes... You don't buy a pair of Christian Louboutins so your feet will be comfortable and protected. Of course, if a law was made based on price, what would prevent everyone from driving up their prices so they could be protected? It's tricky. Great article! I’ve always wondered about the legal implications of this.
I think it would be interesting if there were laws protecting clothing once it reaches a certain price. If you’re spending more than $50 for a t-shirt or more than $200 for a pair of jeans, you’re not buying it just for the function of clothing- you’re buying it as an art piece or to make a statement. And don’t get me started on womens’ shoes… You don’t buy a pair of Christian Louboutins so your feet will be comfortable and protected.
Of course, if a law was made based on price, what would prevent everyone from driving up their prices so they could be protected? It’s tricky.

]]>