subscribe to this page
Call#: Van Pelt Library TT497 .P76 2008
Call#: Van Pelt Library TT504.4 .L95 2007
In this short piece, reporter Bruno Navarro interviews Scott Schuman, creator of The Sartorialist, a popular New York City-based fashion blog with an aesthetic that generally centers on classically dressed adults. Schuman speaks briefly of his interest in fashion, generated as a young boy reading GQ and furthered during his career as a showroom manager at Valentino (which ended when he decided to become a stay-at-home dad). Unlikely many other bloggers, Schuman knows nothing of journalism – a fact which Navarro praises, arguing that it is The Sartorialist’s simple style and positive tone that have led to its immeasurable success. Furthermore, unlike the proliferation of blogs whose witty, catty tone takes a stab at some of fashion’s biggest names, Schuman provides little text, and generally lets the photos speak for themselves, choosing only to add text when he wants to point out a specific detail, like a hemline or collar. Schuman’s work makes evident his great knowledge and love of fashion, and has gained him jobs taking photographs for Esquire Magazine and Style.com.
Although The Sartorialist is an extremely popular fashion blog (Technorati ranks it number 361 in the worldwide blogosphere, as of March 7, 2007), Navarro downplays Schuman’s power as a foreseer of the cool. Instead, Schuman emphasize personal details of Schuman’s life (he grew up in Indiana and recently left the industry to become a stay-at-home dad) and notes that he has no journalism experience and rejects the catty critiques favored by many other fashion insiders, thus painting him instead as a regular guy whose photos speak to the greater public. The underlying message seems almost a reiteration of the Great American Dream, in which the Internet provides the new means for achieving bigshot status in whatever industry you choose, as long as you’re sincere and love your art.
Clearly, Navarro is a bit overly optimistic. First of all, anyone who has ever visited The Sartorialist will tell you right away that Schuman isn’t just an ordinary guy. He has a keen eye for high fashion and tends to photograph people wearing outfits that cost upwards of $1,000. Second, his discussion of colors and details is complete and impressive, as he points out features of a particular outfit that would go unnoticed to the untrained eye. Navarro also downplays the fact that Schuman worked for Valentino, one of the premier Italian designers in haute culture – and a fact which posits Schuman as more of a fashion insider than a regular guy. Furthermore, while Navarro’s celebrates Schuman’s success as a success of the every man, he fails to mention the almost 300,000 blog posts tagged as “fashion” on Technorati, which do not receive nearly the number of pageviews as The Sartorialist and have not led to such opportunities.
Yet overall, the thrust of Navarro’s article seems right on – the world of fashion blogging clearly does allow for people outside the fashion industry to comment on and influence what is popular – and in that respect, Schuman should act as role model for all aspiring fashion bloggers.
Here, Riekert adopts Gladwell’s term to refer to street-style fashion bloggers whose keen sense of fashion results in documentation of the some of globe’s newest and funkiest looks featured on the web for all to see. As a result, fashion industry executives, rather than hiring street teams to seek out “cool” looks, are turning to fashion bloggers in order to ascertain what is in style. This occurrence is widespread and Riekert identifies several companies whose soul purpose is to sift through fashion blogs in the hope of determining the next big thing.
Riekert argues that while these blogs provide a valuable service to the fashion industry, they also democratize the act of coolhunting. “In the end, the price the companies pay for this 'free' information is that they don't have exclusivity,” she explains. Yet coolhunting does not just apply to the fashion industry; indeed, corporations focused on almost any aspect of culture or technology frequently turn to blogs in order to ascertain what the next big trend will be. Like Gladwell’s version of coolhunting, online coolhunting is valuable because it provides up-to-date and cutting-edge information. Furthermore, the interactivity of blogs helps generate further dialogue, as readers comment on posts and debate trends. In the end, ideas debated and favored on the web can be translated into real products created by the industries for the marketplace.
In general, Riekert combines interviews with bloggers and media companies and web statistics to form a solid argument, yet her adoption of the term “coolhunter” to refer to fashion bloggers seems to deviate slightly from Gladwell’s original designation. Unlike the coolhunters of the 1990s, today’s coolhunters are not tied to industry insiders but work for themselves. Rather than reporting their finders directly to a fashion corporation, they post their findings online. Thus, fashion industry experts must go through an extra step in order to access the information that the coolhunters have amassed. This extra step is crucial because it grants both industry insiders and the general public the same information at the same time. Thus, readers are providing feedback in the form of comments and discussion at the same time the fashion industries are designing their new lines. The result is a line of fashion directly influenced by popular opinion.
Yet while many fashions captured by fashion bloggers end up being adapted by the masses, just as many of these fashions are ridiculed or rejected. Although Riekert never explicitly states that fashion blogs make the so-called “cool” subjects featured on blogs susceptible to the (sometimes cruel) opinions of the greater blog-reading public, she ends her article with the mention of a German blogger whose blog features tee-shirts with faux underarm hair – a trend which will likely (or at least hopefully) be rejected by the masses. Extrapolating, one can glean that this more accessible form of coolhunting also strips the cool of some of their power to dictate the fashions, as any new trends must be approved by the masses before they are translated into profitable market goods.
In this article, Zamiatin explores why fashion blogs have attracted so many readers in the past few months. She attributes their growing popularity to two major factors: a sense of immediacy (blogs respond to what is happening currently, and provide updates more frequently than magazines, which are generally issued once a month) and a candid, often humorous writing style not found in fashion magazines. She briefly discusses the recent efforts among fashion bloggers, such as the editors of Coutorture, an online fashion blogging community, to bring together all fashion blogs in one place where users can find them all quickly and easily. Such a community would help democratize fashion by allowing for a multiplicity of voices and allowing readers to leave feedback.
Zamiatin comments that some of the more popular fashion blogs concern themselves with celebrity fashion, thus treading on ground traditionally covered by the mainstream fashion press. However, Zamiatin does not think that fashion blogs will eclipse traditional media such as magazines – instead, will they supplement mainstream media by providing new, current information for fans to consume and discuss.
Zamiatin’s discussion of immediacy and style as two distinguishing features of fashion blogs can be widened to describe much user-generated content created in today’s participatory internet culture: YouTube videos are known for their quick stream-times and often satiric content while web comics such as Achewood or Toothpaste for Dinner are updated daily and offer ridiculous, humorous content. A fashion blog community, such as Coutorture or ShareYourLook.com (see entry) would act as a sort of YouTube for the fashion industry, allowing the best blogs to rise to the top and gain the most pageviews, thus placing fashion even further into the hands of the masses.
Zamiatin is probably correct in arguing that blogs will not displace traditional fashion reporting, but she misses one of the more obvious reasons why this is so: the advantage of an actual (as opposed to virtual) magazine is that you can roll it up, toss it into a backpack and read it in the park or on the beach. While Sidekicks and other devices that allow users to access their email remotely are growing more and more popular, there is something about curling up with a magazine that can not be replicated with a tiny Sidekick screen.
Furthermore, while Zamiatin argues that fashion blogs democratize fashion culture, one could also argue that by focusing on celebrities, many blogs actually reinforce the cultural distance between celebrities and the greater reading public. Instead, it seems more likely that street style blogs, who random stylish strangers, have the potential to democratize fashion by portraying it as something exemplified by ordinary people.
The memoirs of industry insider Steven Cojocaru, Red Carpet Diaries traces Steven’s rise from a blurb writer for People to the host of the Oscar Review and the Today Show’s fashion correspondent. Cojocaru’s voice is varied and descriptive, shifting quickly from bitingly critical to blissfully in awe, depending on the fashion or fashionista at hand. A no-nonsense, trend-obsessed expert, Cojocaru flippantly throws out the names of top designers and galas, touting each celebrity run-in as just another day in his exciting and dramatic life. Style-conscious from birth, Cojocaru developed an interest in fashion from his mother, an Elizabeth Taylor look-alike, while growing up in Canada. Yet his high style helped him rise to the top, where he spends his free time hanging out with celebrities and providing viscous commentary on what others are wearing.
An artifact arising from popular culture, Cojocaru’s book is aimed at fashion lovers and fans of Cojocaru’s (or Cojo, as he is often called) television segment. The result is the snarky combination of affect and criticism that fans have come to love. In adopting such a voice however, Cojo portrays the fashion world as an exciting exotic place only accessible to a chosen elite. While speaking (ostensibly) to the greater reading public, Cojo still maintains a distance from his readers, as one with superior knowledge and experience. This approach is strikingly different from that adopted by Navarro in his interview with fashion blogger Scott Schuman. Navarro portrays Schuman as a regular guy, comparable to any of his readers, yet Cojocaru asserts earlier on in his book that, “I was ‘different’ from the get-go…I was convinced that I was Princess Grace and Prince Rainier’s love child” (6). Through such choices, Cojocaru chooses to distinguish himself from his readers, rather than relate to them.
Published in 2003, Cojo’s book now seems trite and outdated. As the democratization of blogging allows both fashion insiders and experienced coolhunters to seek out cutting edge news and trends via the blogosphere, “confessional” accounts such as Cojo’s seem self-important and irrelevant. Why read the boastings of an industry insider when you too can become an insider, by browsing the blogs for free from your own home? Cojo’s knowledge is no longer privileged, and as a result, it is less valuable. Surrounded by a world of voices commenting on fashion and celebrities, Cojocaru’s voice blends in with hundreds of others commenting on the same people and trends.
Reviews of Cojo’s book were mixed; posted reader responses on Amazon.com alternate between praising Cojo’s witty style and berating the book as trivial gossip. Even among the star’s fans, it seems that the democratization of fashion blogging has diminished the power of industry insiders such as Cojo, making them appear self-important and boring as a result.
This article examines how online fashion bloggers are gaining more and more credibility with industry insiders who are attracted to their large numbers of readers and hope to win them over. As a result, these bloggers are granted advertising deals with major industries and are greeted with open access to fashion shows and events formerly accessible to major media companies only. Top-ranking blogs can also be sold for considerable amounts of money, especially among media companies looking to strike it rich in the world of the elite.
Bloggers also wield considerable power because their snarky, critical comments leave designers fearing an online trashing. Other designers seek out bloggers in the hope of gaining extra publicity. Finally, many designers and media corporations recruit bloggers to come and work for them, hoping that bloggers’ keen sense of style will give their company a coolness boost. Fashion-blogging represents a quickly growing industry, with revenues only expected to rise as online advertising becomes increasingly popular.
A well-researched article, Dodes incorporates comments from several top fashion executives and photo-bloggers with statistics from Technorati (a blog tracker) and BlogAds (an agency responsible for placing advertisements on top-raking blogs.) While the article uses the data to draw reasonable conclusions, it neglects to consider differences between blogs that cover street style versus those that cover couture or celebrity styles. Although Dodes’s failure to differentiate between different types of blogs makes the article appear as it if speaks for them all, when analyzed closely, Dodes seems to focus only on the latter two types. Thus, while she draws a connection between fashion bloggers whose posts about couture and celebrity style may gain them insider status, she does not mention street-style bloggers and never suggests that the writers of such blogs might have a different relationship with the fashion industry.
Nevertheless, the implications of this article are enormous. First of all, Dodes credits fashion bloggers with making the secrets of the fashion world available to anyone who cares to seek them out via the internet. It also posits fashion bloggers as independent and increasingly powerful experts, almost akin to a ruling aristocracy, who are not tied to any one company or designer, but who can praise or criticize different labels as they see fit, and who have commanded the attention of both media companies and fashion industry bigwigs. Finally, Dodes posits a capitalist superstructure (not surprising for WSJ) which maintains that control ultimately lies with whoever influences the masses, and that bloggers succeed because they are more in touch with reading audiences (and thus more likely to influence their liking of a particular item or design) than the industries themselves.
A sociologist writing in the 1990s, Davis explores how trends are determined. He posits fashion as a cycle, in which popular trends fade into oblivion, only to be resuscitated later. However, this cycle has grown short and fragmented as multiple trends gain popularity at the same time and new trends come into and fade from popularity with increasing speed. Davis seeks to determine what causes the fashion cycle to shift by examining different theories. The first of these theories is the trickle-down theory, which posits creation in the hands of the upper classes. Their styles are eventually copied by the lower classes, and as they are replicated, they no longer become fashionable. Davis criticizes this theory for focusing only on class, arguing instead that fashion is a complex form of personal expression that can reveal one’s age, gender, sexual identity, political leanings, leisure inclinations, religious beliefs and more. Davis also points out that while sociology provides a lens for examining how fashion cycles, it fails to account for what the cycle means.
Instead, Davis favors Blumer’s theory of collective selection, in which fashion is driven by tastes and perpetuated by the need to be fashionable. Taste accounts for fashions rising in both small groups and across the mainstream and is influenced by shared life experiences and common interaction. For Blumer, fashion is tied to “modernism”, which he defines as “restlessness, an openness to new experience and fascination with the new.” Finally, he argues that fashion’s quickly cycling trends serves a useful societal function, in ordering the styles of the present, detaching current trends from outdated ones and preparing the populace for future trends. While this theory seems to represent fashion cycles more accurately than the class-ist model, it too fails to provide a methodology for interpreting the meanings behind various fashion statements. Davis worries that both theories are abstract and outdated, shedding little insight into the complex world of fashion and failing to account for the influence and force of the fashion industries.
Davis’s unease with available theories of fashion cycling point to the size and complexity of forces driving what becomes stylish -- forces which have grown even more complex with the advent of fashion blogs. While theories of trickle-down fashion and collective selection seem problematic even to Davis, they still provide two useful, if incomplete, methods for thinking about fashion in the 21 Century. Trickle-down theory and collective selection represent two ends of the spectrum in which one seeks to understand fashion – in the former, fashion is imposed on the populace from above and they have little or no say control over it, and in the latter, fashion is a bottom up process developed by the masses in response to shared experiences. The privileged fashion elite of the trickle-down theory sound remarkably like Gladwell’s innovators, and the trickle-down effect seems to perfectly describe Gladwell’s adoption of trends. While Gladwell’s theory is based on privileged social knowledge as opposed to class, both theories employ similar mechanisms.
Moreover, Blumer’s model of collective selection seems a precursor to Riekert’s fashion model, in which styles favored by online readers are then translated into market goods. Both posit societal taste as the driving force behind fashion, granting the people agency in determining what becomes popular. Yet while Blumer’s model presents taste as organic, arising from life experience, Riekert portrays taste as the ability to adopt or reject options presented by bloggers and by the trendsetters themselves.
The Hot or Not of the fashion blogosphere, ShareYourLook allows users to upload photos of themselves in their favorite outfits and then asks other users to rate their style on a scale of 1 to 5. The site also contains a slew of web 2.0 features that savvy Internet users have undoubtedly become accustomed with – users can email photos, comment on them, tag them or filter them based on style or price. In addition, each user has a homepage, which includes recent fashion photos and personal information. Fun features, such as “The Wall” will randomly generate 20 photos posted on the site, and a “News” page contains links to a variety of blogs sorted into categories: fashion, shopping, celebrities, beauty.
ShareYourLook is an important development for the online fashion community because it allows anyone with a camera and an internet connection to partake in the creating and judging of fashion trends. While street style blogs capture ordinary fashionable people, ShareYourLook contains photos from people across the globe, many of whom may live in areas where fashion bloggers never venture or whose simple styles are unlikely to catch the eye of bloggers seeking unusual, cutting-edge trends. ShareYourLook is unique in that it features ordinary everyday looks alongside more cutting edge looks, and asks users to comment on both. While many of the top-rated looks feature trendy, “high style” items, common items are highly ranked as well, such as skinny jeans and black rain boots. By placing new and unusual items alongside already popular favorites, ShareYourLook’s top-rated looks represent a more accurate compilation of what fashion fans actually find stylish, drawn from a larger pool of varying styles. Like YouTube, the top rated looks on ShareYourLook are those that have received high ratings from multiple users; thus, like YouTube, ShareYourLook provides the tools for a truly democratic fashion culture.
Yet while ShareYourLook provides the tools for fashion democratization, as of now, it does not have enough users to truly represent anything other than the opinions of site-users. While the main page boasts that the site has users in 54 countries, numbers still seem low: the most-viewed look only has 1398 views, as of 11:10 p.m. on March 7, 2007, compared to the top video on YouTube, which has 43,546,227 views as of the same time. Technorati only lists three incoming links to the site, making it relatively insubstantial in the current world of fashion blogging. Even so, ShareYourLook could be the future of fashion blogging – thus democratizing the tools of culture even more.
Mencken, Jennifer. A Design for the Copyright of Fashion. Diss. Boston College of Law 1997. Online. Available: (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1997121201.html).
This article discusses the historical reasons that there is no copyright for fashion designs. It explains clothing in terms of "useful articles without any copyrightable elements", while also discussing the possibility of a fashion monopoly. Mencken discusses how fashion is protected; through trademarks and sometimes common law, as well as fabric copyright protection. However, after setting up these historical views on the subject, Mencken negates many. She claims there is a "need for revision" of stances on fashion copyrightablity, suggesting the Polakovic Model. The economic effects of fashion copyright, or a lack thereof, are outlined and discussed. Finally, Mencken declares that the public would not be hurt by copyrightable fashion, only the pirate.
This is an extremely in-depth look at the past and present views on fashion copyrightability. Mencken's text complicates my own thesis in many ways. She discusses the subject in terms of Europe, where "designers understand that there is a certain level of inspiration and similar themes in each season, and have not been suing each other rampantly over infringement." Because of this article, I realize that I need to do more research into the EU before making assumptions as to what effects fashion copyright law will have on the United States.
United States. Cong. House of Representatives. 109th Congress, 1st Session. Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act [introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives; 4 January 2006].
This bill states that Congress is losing tax dollars, jobs, and up to two billion dollars annually due to counterfeited goods. It proposes that all possibly counterfeited goods be destroyed, and that anyone found guilty of profiting from counterfeited goods must immediately turn all proceeds to the government. It discusses trademarks and states that it is illegal to put such marks on counterfeited goods, even if the person doing so is unaware of the mark's registration.
This is important information in proving that trademark is necessary for fashion copyright, and that motions have been passed protecting designers' rights in this sense. It will be very important for me to make a distinction between wrongs done to fashion designers by illegal use of trademarks and those they claim are done by lack of copyright protection. This shows very clearly that the entire nation is harmed by misuse of trademarks. I imagine it will be quite a deal harder for anyone to find such clear data on how fashion copyright affects the nation.
United States. Cong. House of Representatives. 109th Congress, 2nd Session. To Amend title 17, United States Code, to provide protection for fashion design [introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives; 30 March 2006].
This is the bill proposed to amend Title 17 in order to provide copyright protection for fashion designs. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 30, 2006 by a Mr. Goodlatte. It has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 5055 seeks to include fashion design under the category of designs protected. The bill states that fashion design can be under copyright for three years and changes minor details in the section about infringement, as well as including alterations for other sections.
H.R. 5055 is central to my thesis, and is what my paper will argue against. The recent date on the bill demonstrates that this is a current topic over which there is much debate and information. Definitions for terms such as “design” and “apparel” provide me with a useful point of reference on these otherwise elusive words.
The emergence of trade dress article discusses the importance of protecting fashion designs by means of trademark protection. Design piracy also known as “knocking off” is extremely prevalent in the fashion industry and as a result, actions need to be taken in order to protect those who create the original fashion designs. Copyright laws have been the major focus for trying to protect fashion designs; however, this article explains why trademark is the best means of protection. Copyright laws fail to protect the designers’ overall concept and most articles cannot be protected by copyright laws because they are useful articles. Fashion needs to be protected in order to ensure the continued growth of new and innovative designs. The fashion industry is a billion dollar industry but if there are not designers who are willing to spend their time creating new designs just to have them stolen, then the fashion industry will fail to create new designs. Fashion is considered to be a form of artistic expression by some, if this is true, then why is it not considered to be under the same laws as artwork or architectural works which were recently added to the copyright act. The article spends the first half discussing the failures of copyright laws in protecting fashion and it goes on to propose an alternate solution, trade dress. Trade dress is a “hybrid of trademark and unfair competition law.” “A product’s trade dress is the overall image used to present it to purchasers.” Trade dress came about as a response to the Lanham Act which requires that there must be proof of secondary meaning and that the product is not similar to another product. Two Pesos vs. Taco Cabana is presented as an example of a successful protection of trade dress which was used to protect the overall image and feel of a restaurant including the uniforms. Trade dress may be the method to combat fashion design piracy in the future. Until copyright laws are changed to include fashion, trade dress is the better way for designers to prove infringement. The importance of this article to my thesis is that it goes into great detail about the importance of finding another means of protection instead of copyright law. Instead of fashion protection through copyright, trademark might be considered to be the best form of protection, specifically trade dress. In my paper I am trying to figure out the best method of protection for fashion designs between copyright laws and trademark laws. This paper gives the side of trademark and through the example of Two Pesos, does a great job of explaining the distinctiveness of trade dress. Also, trade dress is presented as the best way to protect fashion designs as a result of it being easier for designers to prove that their designs were copied illegally.
Many designers debate the issue of whether or not fashion should be protected by copyright laws. This article compiles a variety of pros and cons on the matter of fashion protection. Although it might seem that there is plenty of evidence to justify the protection of fashion by copyright or trademark laws, this article takes both sides on the issues. Some argue that fashion needs to be protected in order to ensure the growth of the fashion industry as well as new designers. Designers such as Diane Von Furstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and Zac Posen, along with the Council of Fashion designers of America, all argue that fashion should be included under the copyright act. They all argue that imitation has negatively affected the luxury business and they are asking lawmakers to support a proposed fashion design anti-piracy act. Why should books, music and other creative arts be protected by copyright laws, but not fashion. Half of the article argues that if a bill is passed protecting fashion, then there are going to be some major chances in the retail industry. But there are others, particularly those who have benefited from copying fashion designers, who argue that they are not “copying” others work, but they are simply deriving their ideas from similar works. Protecting designers under copyright laws can lead to further debates as to how to separate a duplicate garment from one simply inspired by someone else’s work or part of a fashion trend. The article mentions a very successful example of a designer who has made millions simply by copying designer dresses and making less expensive versions to sell to the public. A.B.S. by Allan B. Schwartz has created a business of copying designer evening gowns. He argues that “there is no such thing as an original design and all these designers are getting their inspiration from things that were done before.” However, the reason clothing design is not protected under copyright or trademark law in the United States is that it is considered foremost as a utilitarian item, not an artistic expression or scientific invention. This article is imperative to my argument because it gives examples of the negative implications of fashion design protection. Many articles only discuss reasons why fashion should be protected by copyright or other forms of protection, but there are very few which look at it from a different perspective. What will happen to those who have made their living based on copying other people’s designs? Will it affect their business and if so how much will they have to pay to keep their fashion designs? Also, are there clear enough boundaries when considering if something is an exact copy of something else or if it was merely an idea inspired by another fashion design? These are all questions which need to be answered before laws can be created to protect fashion design.
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
Jennifer Mencken wrote this article in order to discuss the protection of fashion designs through copyright and the negative economic impact copyright protection could create in the future. The main point of this article is to discuss how fashion piracy affects the economy and to see if protecting fashion through copyright is really worth it. Fashion is a billion dollar industry and even though fashion designs should be protected, Mencken argues that this might harm the economy. Through the increasing discussion of fashion through news, magazines, and television, people are becoming more and more aware of certain designs. Even though people are becoming more into fashion, it’s because of this that design piracy is so popular. As designs become more popular, the more a designers’ work is replicated, allowing people to have more access to fashions. The main idea of this article is proving that copyright is the best means of protection for fashion design. The other methods of protection are mentioned briefly but the article spends a lot of time deliberating the issues involving copyright law. Mencken argues that there is a “conceptual separability of fashion’s artistic elements from the functionality of clothing.” The article describes the requirements for implementation of copyright law towards fashion designs. Changes need to be made to current laws in order to diminish the confusion between a fashion’s artistic elements and its functionality. Even though the article argues that through protecting fashion designs the economy will be negatively affected, protection should still be granted. Who is to decide what the best methods of protection are? The basis for granting copyright protection lies in awarding the author a moral right to his creation. A garment design copyright only punishes the pirate, who deliberately copies the design, while benefiting the true creators and the public.
Mencken’s article will be useful towards my paper by providing reasons why copyright might be the best method of fashion design protection in addition to providing the negative realities of copyright. It will also provide me with the economic realities involved with fashion piracy. Piracy drives the fashion industry and if there were restrictions placed on fashion works how would this affect the economy? This article will help me answer this question.
Raustiala, Kal and Christopher Sprigman. The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Research Paper No. 06-04. UCLA School of Law. January 2006. http://ssrn.com/abstract=878401.
The piracy paradox includes discussion on the “innovation and intellectual property in fashion design.” The piracy paradox essay is the most recent document expanding on the issue of fashion protection. While other articles in the past have brought up one side of the debate, mainly the importance of changing existing laws to protect fashion designs, this article goes into great depth about both sides of the argument. The fashion industry’s principle creative element is outside the domain of IP law. This article asks a very important question, “Why is copying in the fashion industry treated so differently from copying in other creative industries?” The author goes on to argue that copyright fails to deter innovation in the fashion industry because copying is not harmful to originators. Also, it explains how copyright functions as an important element of the apparel industry’s “swift cycle of innovation.” Another question answered is to what degree are IP rights necessary in particular industries to induce investment in innovation? The article is divided into three parts which include: a brief overview of the apparel industry, induced obsolescence and anchoring, and lastly, the broader implications of the fashion case.
Designs are frequently copied by retailers, such as H&M, which offers cheap copies of expensive fashion. Copying isn’t limited to retailers; magazines continually show examples of “splurge vs. steal” outfits. Also, copying is not limited to fashion as well, art, music, dance, and film are copied all the time but there are protections in place to protect an author’s work. The article talks about the new technologies which allow for the faster replication of fashion designs which leads to the swift cycle of innovation. Designers have to create new works at an even quicker pace nowadays to keep up with the current trends and create new trends in which people will want to buy. Even though the fashion industry has remained unaffected by the lack of protection, there is a standard IP theory which predicts that extensive copying will eventually destroy the incentive for innovation. This is one of the reasons lawmakers have been pushing to create some form of fashion design protection recently. This article is a great source for current, up-to-date information about the fashion piracy debate. Many important issues are brought up including, moving forward with fashion, the positive and negative impacts of fashion piracy protection, all of which are useful for my final paper in discussing what is the best method of protection and is it a viable solution. The explanation of the place of IP protection in fashion design and instances where copyright protection will beneficial is relevant to my final paper. This paper is defines the different processes in the fashion world and helps to clarify the important roles played in the one-day inclusion of fashion design into copyright legislature.
Can fashion be copyrighted? This article tries to answer that question through arguments for both sides of the debate. U.S. designers are trying to push legislation which would protect their designs but “the odds of passage are slim.” The authors try to answer the question, “is fashion design an art worthy of protection or a craft whose practitioners can and should freely copy one another?” In trying to answer this question, the authors provide the arguments of both the designers and those creating copies of designs. The “piracy paradox” is mentioned to show that by copying fashions it allows for trends to develop more quickly so if fashion was protect, the life cycle of fashion would be very slow. However, if this occurs then it could potentially harm individual designers. There is a paradox as to what is more beneficial, protecting the individual designs or the pace of the fashion cycle? One side argues for the creation of knockoffs as a means of allowing multiple types of people to participate in the trends because they are created at difference price levels. The other side argues that designers will not want to spend as much time or energy coming up with new designs if their work will just be copied. Is there a way to protect the fashion designs while keeping knockoffs around? The legislation proposed for protecting fashion designs would result in legal battles in which a designer can sue those they believe infringed their copyright. Is there a place for knockoffs while at the same time is it possible to protect fashion? The confusion exists in what makes fashion design different from other forms of art? The recent movement of high-end designers pushing for copyright protection would argue that fashion is a form of art which deserves to be protected. However, one has to ask themselves if fashion is copyrighted what are the implications of this on the fashion industry as a whole? Is the protection of a few designers worth the desertion of knockoff designers who create cheaper designs based on high end fashions? These are questions I would like to answer in my final paper and this article stirs these kinds of questions by presenting the piracy paradox. Also, it supports the notion that the fashion design cycle is ultimately not phased by knockoffs as it continues to grow to be one of the most lucrative. As a result, is there even a need for fashion protection?
“Copyright vs. Trademark vs. Patent.” Law Mart. 2006. Lawmart.com, Inc. 25 Nov. 2006.
This article discusses copyright, trademark and patent, noting the similarities and differences of these different types of intellectual property. There is a special section about copyright vs. trademark which outlines the uses and limitations of each. As we have discussed in class, copyright gives legal rights to the owner of an original work. Trademark protects a phrase, symbol, etc. which identifies the source of the goods trademarked.
While most of my paper will be about fashion copyright, it is important for me to include the fact that designers already have trademark protection. In terms of fashion, I believe that the former is a bad idea, but the latter is absolutely necessary. This article clearly states the differences of the two and will help me make this distinction clear to my readers.
United States. House of Representatives. House Judiciary. Design Piracy Prohibition Act, Opening Statement by Susan Scafidi. Hearing, 27 July 2006.
This is the text of Susan Scafidi’s opening statement on H.R. 5055. It calls for copyright on fashion design, a step she claims has become necessary due to the digital era. She states the original reason for copyright law and explains why she believes it only constitutional to allow for fashion copyrights, as well. She also responds to testimony made by the opposition. The point is made, as well, that all levels of the fashion industry can be copied, not only expensive designers. H&M is cited, a company many other articles labeled as an infamous copier. However, Scafidi reveals that even H&M has been knocked off and has sought legal action.
This opening statement is an excellent example of the argument opposing my own. It will be useful in shaping my paper, as there can be no argument without a counter-argument. She has much to say on the historical context of copyright law and claims it necessary to protect small American businesses. As it is my opinion that the inclusion of fashion in the realm of things copyrightable will only lead to monopolies, her argument about small businesses is one of which I need to be aware to counter.
United States. House of Representatives. House Judiciary. Design Piracy Prohibition Act, Testimony by David Wolfe. Hearing, 27 July 2006. Online. LexisNexis. 25 November 2006.
David Wolfe, Creative Director for the Doneger Group, testified against the Design Piracy Prohibition Act on July 27, 2006. This is the text of his testimony. He argues that the fashion industry in America is aided by the lack of fashion copyright, and that the passing of this bill would be harmful to the industry. He discusses the different places from which Americans draw fashion ideas; movies, history, etc. For example, he states that kimono-type clothing became popular after the release of "Memoirs of a Geisha." If one designer saw this movie and produced a kimono, does that mean that all others inspired by the movie would be copying the original designer? In many cases, no. Therefore, David explains, it is extremely hard to determine originality in the fashion world.
The argument is also made that the fashion industry in America seems to be doing just fine right now. In fact, it has been thriving for many years without copyright protection. Moreso, to allow copyright would stunt the market's growth and increase prices dramatically. This article holds many of the arguments I wish to make about fashion copyright. Wolfe also discusses the protection trademarks give to designers. It is one thing to include in a line of clothing an article similar to that of another designer. It is another thing entirely to attempt to pass that off as the work of the original designer. It is for this reason that trademarks exist. Viiolating the protection of these trademarks is illegal and has little to do with H.R. 5055.
17 US Code, Sec. 1301. 1998. Online. LexisNexis (TM) Academic. 25 November 2006.
This is one section of Title 17 of the United States Code that H.R. 5055 seeks to revise. I was unable to find Title 17 on one page in its entirety anywhere that I could link through penntags, but from this section one can navigate to the other parts of this title. This assures copyright protection for the owner of an original design on an article deemed useful. Also assured copyright protection through this section are the designers or owners of vessels. Other sections of Title 17 deal with things like what does not fall under design copyright, how long copyright protection lasts, infringement, etc.
While researching H.R. 5055, I found referencing this code to be extremely useful. The bill for revision outlines clearly what it will add or change about specific sections of Title 17 but it does not include any wording from the original document. It is vital that I have this code to study so that I can see what exactly H.R. 5055 proposes to alter.
Terms such as “original”, “useful article” and “vessel,” among others, are defined as to avoid confusion. These definitions proved helpful in my comprehension and research, for a few reasons. First, whilst reading H.R. 5055 I was not entirely sure what sort of vessel was being discussed. USCS Section 1301 cleared this up for me immediately. Also, having a clear-cut definition for “useful article” as set by the United States Code is useful, as the term is rather broad and vague.
Wilson continues to discuss European laws on fashion copyright. The European Union has become more involved in fashion copyright protection and has extended a hand to designers from its member countries. Wilson also revisits the 1930's through the 1960's when stealing of patterns and designs was as omnipresent as fashion itself. Wilson closes his article with the argument of all things that should be protected, fashion should be protected by copyright law now becuase of the "disposable income" that most members of society now have. Thus, the importance of councils like the Council of Fashion Designers are necessary inorder to keep balance in a industry where piracy is as well accepted as season by season clothing style change. It is no longer desire, its necessity.
This article is very important to my thesis because it talks about fashion designers taking piracy and the lack of protection for fashion design to th D.C. to have their voices heard. Wilson cites interesting examples including fashion magazines that feature "steal v. splurge" pieces to help its readers obtain highfashion looks for affordable prices, however, willingly or unwillingly supporting the place of piracy in fashion. Wilson talks about the effects of copying and piracy on the "luxury" of the industry and in regards to my thesis, there would be an effect of sorts if fashion was not protected by copyright and vice versa.
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.
Raustiala, Kal and Christopher Sprigman. The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Research Paper No. 06-04. UCLA School of Law. January 2006. http://ssrn.com/abstract=878401.
This long paper was written by Karl Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman. Ninety pages in its entirety, it is a thesis on IP law and Fashion Design. This paper is perhaps the most important piece on IP and Fashion Design to come out recently. The essay opens with a strong paragraph, the authors write the following.
"Advocates
for strong intellectual property (IP) protections note that scientific and technological
innovations, as well as music, books, and other literary and artistic works, are often
difficult to create but easy to copy. Absent IP rights, they argue, copyists will free-ride
on the efforts of creators, discouraging future investments in new inventions and
creations. In short, copying stifles innovation."
This idea that "copying stifles innovation," is not new and not only limited to Fashion Design. The same proverb applies neatly to writing, music, art, dance, film, anything that stirs the creative. The authors continue and say though trademarks are well protected, copying of designs are everywhere. The fact that the fashion design industry continues to put out new designs and accessories at an incredibly fast pace and seem unaffected by the copying defies what the authors call "standard IP theory." " The standard theory of IP rights predicts that extensive copying will destroy the incentive for new innovation. Yet, fashion firms continue to innovate at a rapid clip, precisely the opposite behavior of that predicted by the standard theory."
The sources cited in the paper are both common and uncommon, clearly related to fashion design and copyright while others take a more general role in explaining the place of public domain and free thoughts. The paper also shoes some pictures of examples of what would be copyright infringement and how it differs from trademarks. The authors continue to explain thoroughly the place of IP in fashion design and instances where copyright protection would have been beneficial. The paper also plays its own devil's advocate, denyin it of copyright protection, claiming, if the fashion design industry is so profitable now, why protect it? The continue and talk about the fashion cycle, the thought process to the pen, the pen to the paper, the paper to the catwalk, and then to closets around the world.
They come to a close, discussing how can fashion not be ubiquitious when all magazines do is analyze what is the hottest boot this season or the way to wear layers without looking like you are in hiding. "Indeed, IP law fails to protect the
core of fashion, the design. Despite this lack of protection, the fashion industry continues
to create new designs on a regular basis. The lack of copyright protection for fashion
designs has not deterred investment in the industry. Nor has it reduced innovation in
designs, which are plentiful each season. Fashion plainly provides an interesting and
important challenge to IP orthodoxy."
This paper is incredibly important to anyone researching copryight in any medium. Incredibly well written and supported clearly with pertinent sources, the paper helps to explain why the lack of IP protection in certain areas exists and how, if ever, fashion could be protected by IP law. The paper is very important as support for my thesis. It talks about the fashion-knockoff cycle and the inability to draw the line between piracy and authenticity. This paper is heavy on defining different processes in the fashion world and helps to clarify the important role processes play in the one-day inclusion of fashion design into copyright legislature.
Scafidi, Susan. "Welcome Wall Street Journal Readers!" [Weblog entry]. Counterfeit Chic. 11 Sept 2006. (http://www.counterfeitchic.com/2006/09/welcome_wall_street_journal_re.php). 25 Nov 2006.
This is the reaction of Susan Scafidi, author of the blog Counterfeit Chic, to the Wall Street Journal article, "Can Fashion be Copyrighted?" Scafidi, who was quoted in the article, uses this blog entry mostly to summarize the Wall Street Journal's article as well as alert readers of its presence. However, she also adds some of her own thoughts and clarifications. She is quoted discussing the differences between clothing historically and clothing today, stating that it was previously a craft, but now an art. in this blog entry, however, she makes the point that has always held some meaning or clues about its wearer, be it class, occupation, or other detail.
The blog entry also has a reader's response to the Wall Street Journal article as well as Susan's own thoughts.The reader argues against much of what was said about craft vs. art, insisting instead that most art is borrowed. She cites Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein as examples. While I may not quote this reader, as I know nothing of her background, she makes a good argument which provided me with more ideas and points to consider. Scafidi's response to the reader is also interesting. This blog will be helpful to me both in a clarification of Scafidi's ideas as well as the arguments in the comments on which I can base more research.
Call#: Van Pelt Library HC260.C6 S52 2006
Collins points to the "jazzy suit" Hepburn's Sabrina wears at the train station when William Holden's David Larrabee first notices her, the floral white ball gown that essentially serves as Sabrina's coming out outfit, and the black cocktail dress that "spawned a thousand knockoffs." These couture looks featured different necklines and cuts than were typical at the time, and were tailored to emphasize Hepburn's slight frame. When Hepburn doubted her acting abilities, Givenchy's clothes provided her with the solace that she at least looked the part.
Collins writes that the clothes also went on to inform plot details of the film. Inspired by Hepburn's sophistication in the Givenchy suit, screenplay writer Ernest Lehman changed the script to make David Larrabee unaware of Sabrina's identity when he picks her up at the train station. Later, in the ball scene, Sabrina's simple but elegant dress distinguished her character. Lehman said of the film's wardrobe, "[The clothes] were extremely helpful to the character, the mood, the movie. They made the transformation believable."
Hepburn's star--and salary--shot up after the release and success of Sabrina. In addition to their impact on the film's success, Collins believes Givenchy's designs for Sabrina shaped Hepburn's public persona. The actress added to this effect by wearing clothes from the movie while promoting it in Europe. Hepburn-eqsue designs also continue to influence current fashion. Collins' article is an interesting, though not scholarly, take on the influence fashion can have in the success of a film, or in Audrey Hepburn's case, an entire personal image.