Fashion designs in the United States are widely unprotected by intellectual property rights. Knockoff designers often recreate the couture masterpieces of major design houses without paying royalties and without the labor involved in producing the high-end fashion designs. Though recently multiple bills have been introduced into Congress that would grant three years of protection for the actual designs, many argue that this protection is actually damaging to the fashion industry that thrives on competitive creativity. On the one hand, no protective measures for fashion design would be extensive enough to completely prohibit design piracy. Ultimately, however, the damage caused by a fashion copyright law to the entire fashion industry would far outweigh any possible benefits that may be enjoyed by high-end fashion designers. This theory can also be applied to other thriving industries with unprotected intellectual property.

This article is extremely useful as evidence for my thesis in that it provides both support and opposition for the fashion copyright argument, concluding that protection of something as abstract as a fashion design would ultimately be detrimental to the industry as a whole. The article is particularly interesting because of its extension of the same reason into other industries that also do not have intellectual property protection. The argument puts in perspective exactly how a copyright law would affect not just one industry, but would inhibit creativity in other industries as well. This aspect adds an extra layer of depth to the argument that supports my overarching thesis.

Fashion designs in the United States are widely unprotected by intellectual property rights. Knockoff designers often recreate the couture masterpieces of major design houses without paying royalties and without the labor involved in producing the high-end fashion designs. Though recently multiple bills have been introduced into Congress that would grant three years of protection for the actual designs, many argue that this protection is actually damaging to the fashion industry that thrives on competitive creativity. On the one hand, no protective measures for fashion design would be extensive enough to completely prohibit design piracy. Ultimately, however, the damage caused by a fashion copyright law to the entire fashion industry would far outweigh any possible benefits that may be enjoyed by high-end fashion designers. This theory can also be applied to other thriving industries with unprotected intellectual property.

This article is extremely useful as evidence for my thesis in that it provides both support and opposition for the fashion copyright argument, concluding that protection of something as abstract as a fashion design would ultimately be detrimental to the industry as a whole. The article is particularly interesting because of its extension of the same reason into other industries that also do not have intellectual property protection. The argument puts in perspective exactly how a copyright law would affect not just one industry, but would inhibit creativity in other industries as well. This aspect adds an extra layer of depth to the argument that supports my overarching thesis.

In this paper, Lisa J Hedrick, argues against a copyright for fashion designs. Before laying down her stance, she spells out all the facts and then goes onto to articulate her own opinion. She uses a brilliant quote from the blockbuster movie The Devil Wears Prada, to begin her paper.  

The fashion industry thrives on glitz, glamour, not to mention change. The shelf life of a product or a design in this lucrative industry is only a few months at the most, making the turnaround  time very fast. Hedrick argues against copyright saying that the cost of litigation would be so high it would be irrational to protect something with such a short shelf life.  

Hedrick begins her paper by explaining the current state of intellectual property law and its failure to protect fashion. The ambiguity of the definitions of the words ‘fashion design’, ‘design’ and ‘apparel’ in The Design Piracy Bills is a major concern and can be projected as being seen as a major reason why fashion won’t actually be copyrighted in a proper manner, if the bills are passed. The many restrictions that will indirectly be put in place by these  bills might eventually cripple the industry. Designers will have to think twice before creating something and to ensure that their goods will be protected by these bills. Hedrick brings up an interesting issue of “conceptual separability” that already exists within current copyright law. It is the only concept under which fashion designs are provided with a minimal amount of protection. But even so, there are numerous tests that the designs have to pass, as Hedrick points out, for them to be protected. For instance a certain item of design or piece of clothing needs to pass the test of whether the button is original or not even the most minor alterations to an item of clothing. 

Hedrick talks of the proposed Fashion design protection under the Bills and later compares current Fashion protection in different parts of the world. European fashion copyright protection with its concept of  the Community design system, would be the closest thing that could be compared with what American fashion protection is aiming for. However the differences in the legal processes between the two demographics make it hard to compare the situation.  

This paper is very essential as a source: not only does Hedrick argue the same point as I do, but she also goes to great lengths to fully explain the legal situation. Her meticulous and thorough method of approaching the issue fully inform the reader of the current scenario. She has also explained this well and even points to a direction where fashion copyright might work. Her sound argument makes for a crucial source.  

Hedrick, Lisa J.,Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams. Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 215-273, 2008.

Lisa Hedrick's "Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams" discusses the possible consequences that may occur with the enactment of more effective fashion protection. More specifically, the paper points out the different proposals and bills concerning fashion copyright and protection and their effects on the fashion industry. Hedrick explains that copyright protection may not even be essential to make sure that innovation continues; annual sales in the US fashion industry increased from approximately 130 billion to over 200 billion over the past decade. Moreover, fashion protection could potentially create even more problems - if Congress enacts stronger protection, other creative industries, like food, furniture, and cars, may also request protection. Therefore, fashion protection may become the foundation for a big expansion of the US's intellectual property law. Hedrick also stresses the importance of "conceptual separability" in determining whether a product can attain protection. Conceptual separability is the expression that courts use to decide which parts of a product are qualified for copyright protection and which parts are not. This, however, has created confusing lawsuits and leaves most clothing designs unprotected. So despite several congressional attempts, effective protection for fashion and other products of design has never pulled through. Furthermore, Hedrick acknowledges that copyright for fashion is extremely difficult, especially for specific designs. Hedrick substantiates her point by quoting David Wolfe, a creative director for a fashion marketing and consulting company. He stated, "It is possible to create a new textile, a new print, but a new design is almost impossible because all we are doing in creating a new one is putting together existing elements in a different way" (241). Therefore, a key reason why fashion copyright is currently so feeble is because the qualifications for attaining the copyright is extremely difficult.

Ultimately, Hedrick explains that the fashion industry may thrive most effectively if Congress distinguishes fashion copyright laws and other similar types of protection from other industries such as food and furniture. Therefore, this paper will help me explain to my readers that because effective fashion protection is very difficult to achieve, it is better to have no protection than little protection. Thus, this will support my thesis, which argues that fashion copyright should not be enacted.

Hedrick, Lisa J. "Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams." Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 215-273, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1127190

This article presents both side of the copyright debate more in terms of the pieces of legislation proposed for fashion copyright. It goes through the pros and cons of either side of the fashion copyright argument and then argues against the enactment of these laws. Fashion design falls within the negative space of copyright protection. Therefore, designers cannot prevent knockoffs of their original designs. This paper acknowledges that these knockoffs are harmful as they hurt the designer's profits and reputation due to the low quality of imitation products. Piracy causes almost $12 billion of loss in the fashion year annually. The paper is set up this way and the author then skillfully uses all these facts that seem to support fashion copyright to show why copyright laws are ineffective in stopping any of these problems. First of all, terms such as fashion design, apparel, and design are extremely ambiguous but are used within the Design Piracy Bills. This is simply because fashion is hard to define and consequently very difficult to protect. The author also explains that fashion also cannot effectively use patents, trademark, trade dress, or copyright (due to its utilitarian function) for protection purposes. In addition to the vagueness of fashion lingo, the Design Piracy Bills would simply cause congestion of the courts with senseless cases due to the extreme subjectivity that would be involved in fashion court cases. Even if the bills went through, there are so many loopholes that pirates can find within these bills to basically render any protection useless. Finally, Hedrick looks at the fashion laws in the European Union and shows that even with laws hardly any cases come to court regarding piracy. However, she points out the cultural differences in that America is much more litigious and these laws could force designers to pay large amounts of money for lawyers to protect clothing that has a short shelf life. In addition, there is no guarantee that courts will even be able to punish pirates. It is also very possible that the laws enacted in the US would be much stronger than those in the European Union, which could lead to monopolies that would stifle creativity. Although Hedrick is opposed to these laws, she does make some suggestions on how to improve fashion copyright dealings if these laws go through. Overall though, her basic argument is that effective protection by Congress for fashion design is impossible. So, no protection is better than minimal protection. Any benefits that might arise from design protection would diminish rapidly with the cost and time of court decisions on piracy.

This source is obviously beneficial to my argument since it supports my thesis. However, the importance of this source is due to the rational and legal method used by the author to argue against fashion copyright. The author basically looks at the problems with the fashion industry at present and then shows the correlating proposed laws. However, she then analyses these legal proposals to show that they are extremely ineffective at solving the issues surrounding the fashion industry. If anything, these "solutions" might actually make things worse. The argument basically concludes that the fashion industry is inherently incapable of useful intellectual property protection. Therefore, time and energy should not be wasted on implementing laws that will most likely not benefit the industry.

Fashion designs in the United States are widely unprotected by intellectual property rights. Knockoff designers often recreate the couture masterpieces of major design houses without paying royalties and without the labor involved in producing the high-end fashion designs. Though recently multiple bills have been introduced into Congress that would grant three years of protection for the actual designs, many argue that this protection is actually damaging to the fashion industry that thrives on competitive creativity. On the one hand, no protective measures for fashion design would be extensive enough to completely prohibit design piracy. Ultimately, however, the damage caused by a fashion copyright law to the entire fashion industry would far outweigh any possible benefits that may be enjoyed by high-end fashion designers. This theory can also be applied to other thriving industries with unprotected intellectual property.

This article is extremely useful as evidence for my thesis in that it provides both support and opposition for the fashion copyright argument, concluding that protection of something as abstract as a fashion design would ultimately be detrimental to the industry as a whole. The article is particularly interesting because of its extension of the same reasoning into other industries that also do not have intellectual property protection. The argument puts in perspective exactly how a copyright law would affect not just one industry, but would inhibit creativity in other industries as well. This aspect adds an extra layer of depth to the argument that supports my overarching thesis.

Fashion designs in the United States are widely unprotected by intellectual property rights. Knockoff designers often recreate the couture creations of major design houses without paying royalties and without the labor involved in imagining the high-end fashion designs. Though recently multiple bills have been introduced into Congress that would grant three years of protection for the actual designs, many argue that this protection is actually damaging to the industry that thrives on competitive creativity. On the one hand, no protective measures for fashion design would be extensive enough to completely prohibit design piracy. The damage caused by a fashion copyright law would far outweigh any possible benefits for the fashion industry and all other industries with intellectual property.

This article is extremely useful as evidence for my thesis in that it provides both support and opposition for the fashion copyright argument, concluding that protection of something as abstract as a fashion design would ultimately be detrimental. The article extends the same reasoning to other industries that also do not have intellectual property protection, concluding that applying copyright law to one industry would inhibit creativity in other industries as well, which adds an extra layer of depth to the argument that supports my overarching thesis.

This article provides for the reader the pros and cons of the fashion copyright argument, eventually arguing against the endorsement of such laws. The author initially admits that piracy causes $12 billion of loss in the fashion industry annually, and even in Japan and in the European Union fashion designs fall within the scope of current intellectual property protections. However, despite the wishes and demands of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the author warns that enactment of fashion copyright laws should be approached with caution. Furthermore, she goes on to say that "meaningful protection" is impossible to maintain. Because of the difficulty that exists in defining the terms of fashion, fashion design will be difficult to protect. In addition, such an enactment will cause conflicts and more controversy in Congress. Not only will there be a plethora of fashion copyright cases, but other industries, which are not currently protected, will likely bombard Congress asking for similar protection. According to this article, any benefits that could result from design protection would, in the end, be eliminated due to the time and costliness of court decision on piracy.

            This source proved beneficial for my purposes because of the different angle Hendrick went at looking at the problems with piracy and fashion design. Unlike my other sources, she used a very legalistic method of finding evidence against the benefits of enacting the fashion copyright laws. By analyzing these laws, she contends that they are extremely ineffective at solving the issues surrounding the copyright and fashion industry. Another negative aspect is illuminated for me: the time and costliness of court decisions that would inevitably result.