Horan, Elizabeth R. “Technically Outside the Law: Who Permits, Who Profits, and Why.” The Emily Dickinson Journal 10.1 (2001): 34-54.

Offering what seems to be significantly an economic outlook on Copyright intentions, Horan claims that incentive is the motivating reason and concern for creators to create and for that creation to serve the public good after a limited time (28 years). Similar to Carol Ou and her article on control over new technology, Horan presents us with examples to make her point about the increasing difficulty of controlling content. In this case she offers the example of Emily Dickinson’s writings to moot the point even recalling radio programs as an earlier obstruction to copyright control.

In describing Copyright incentive a new perspective was given me. Writers and artists of all kinds create because of the knowledge they of copyright protection. This may not be their primary reasoning, but perhaps at times it could be especially when their main motive is to gain monetary success.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123809?&Search=yes&term=jane&term=ginsburg%2C&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dginsburg%252C%2Bjane%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=5&ttl=2136&returnArticleService=showArticle

While this class has extensively discussed the relationship between copyright and culture in the United States, it has only briefly touched on copyright on an international scale. The infringement of intellectual property rights is in many cases more widespread abroad, where the United States and its copyright industries experience difficulty enforcing copyright laws. The United States Trade Representative has proposed an Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement which includes the United States, the European Union and other developed countries. I am interested in exploring the consequences and limitations of this agreement and whether it will effectively curb international piracy and change the culture of copyright infringement.

As I am getting older, my affinity for shoes and bags is growing with my years. It is not necessarily the name, but the style and the feel, the look of bags and shoes that draw me to spend more and more on fashion. I spend time flipping through catalogues and websites, walking through stores, just appreciating the things I will never own for the financial burden of a shoe and bag obsession has caused a dip in my credit at a young age. However, the abundance of knock-off's for name brands, being sold at much more affordable prices, pose an obvious threat to the fashion aesthete. Just because they look the same, are they same? Who would know? Is the quality the same? The color? Because one brand creates a cute patent leather pump with a rounded toe, and soon after another is selling a shockingly similar shoe, has there been an instance of fashion fraud? Where are the fashion police, the crusaders of all things good and just? Who says what can be determined as having artistic integrity and or intellectual creativity? The moment an idea comes to one's mind, should they file for some sort of protection? The thought process and intellectual property law forever obscure the lines for all concerned about legal protection. Regardless of the medium, intellectual property law is a dynamic field and asks its noble followers to help untangle the messy web of ambiguity. Where do our thoughts and individual creativity meet at the crossroads of copyright and protection? In the fashion industry, one of the world's fastest growing entities as well as large supplier of creative material, intellectual property law and copyright are a new development in the protection of designs and details, sweaters and stitching. Whether in sketch form or in skirt, from the drawing board to the boardroom, fashion copyright is complicated. Can it be protected? When does an instance of 'substantial similarity' become imitation or worse, chargeable theft? Can the line be drawn? If copyright law is extended to include protection for fashion design, will the world of fashion be forever affected? The blurriness in the fashion design industry resulting from the almost counterintuitive cycle of fashion profits spurred by piracy makes it incredibly difficult to decide. Ultimately, copyright protection for fashion design is necessary and without protection, piracy will continue to hinder the progress of creativity and production as well as cause a discontinuity in what can be considered organic artistic thought.

 Mencken, Jennifer. A Design for the Copyright of Fashion." Diss. Boston College of Law, 1997.            

    http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1997121201.html#fna

 

"A Design for the Copyriight of Fashion" was written by Jennifer Mencken in 1997. The essay, though short, covers some very important topics in regards to fashion copyright and protection of designs. The introduction considers that becuase the fashion industry is one of the largests and has no boundaries, economically or socially, it is hard to contain.

Mencken's essay discusses the reasoning behind not protecting designs and talks about the process from thought and conviction to pen and paper, and eventually, to the showroom and the streets. She briefly cites the ability for some fashion designs to be protected under Common Law, however, that angle is now since moot. Though the article was published in 1997, almost ten years ago, most of the information remains pertinent. Mencken discusses patents versus copyright and trademarks verus monopolies on fashion.

She continues to argue for the "Implementation of Fashion Design Copyright." She identifies that there is a "conceptual separability of fashion's artisict elements from the functionality of clothing." She cites the Copyright Act of 1976, allowing the line to be cast that fashion design is almost similar to writing, in respects, to protection. Conceptual separability versus the creative process is a major discussion in the paper.

She closes with a discussion on the scope of copyright and the "requirements for implementation." She says, " In creating a copyright system which recognizes the expressions of designers, many old fears, such as burdening the consumer and creating a marketplace monopoly, resurface. With tens of thousands of designers churning out work, it is easy to foresee chaos. How far does the copyright extend? For how long? What would constitute infringement?"

She closes with a discussion on the effect of copyright in fashion on the industry. She concludes that copyright on fashion should be a decision of the designers rather than the people who purchase their creations.

This article is particularly important to my thesis and argument for my paper as it attacks and answers questions about how copyright in fashion can and will affect the industry. This article is also important as it plays devil's advocate and expresses the concern with copyright and fashion and how the lack of copyright can be seen to have not affected the economic aspects of the industry.