Designer Vs. Vendor: Battle Over Copyright Issue Hits Congress

[Spike413]

from WWD.com

Published: Friday, February 15, 2008
By Kristi Ellis

WASHINGTON — The two sides of the fashion industry squared off in Congress on Thursday over the issue of whether fashion designs should be protected by copyright law.

A bill that would put more teeth into copyright protection for fashion designs that is trumpeted by the Council of Fashion Designers of America has been stuck in committee because of industry infighting. On Thursday, the pro-and-con cases were presented before a House committee by Narciso Rodriguez and the owner of a California apparel firm, respectively.

The CFDA is trying to bridge the divide with the rest of the apparel industry and has held discussions with the American Apparel and Footwear Association for over a year, according to the designer and written testimony from Kevin Burke, the association's president and chief executive officer. The AAFA represents most of the industry's major brands and companies.

Rodriguez, who claimed knockoffs of his designs take away millions of dollars a year from his business, told lawmakers he is "hopeful" the two associations will reach an agreement within a month on the language of the bill regarding the scope and risk of litigation.

Rodriguez laid out a case to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on behalf of the CFDA in support of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate but has not moved out of committee. The subcommittee is expected to wait to see if the CFDA and the AAFA can reach a compromise on the acceptable language in the bill before voting whether to move the legislation.

The bill would amend current law to allow companies and designers to register their fashion designs for three years of copyright protection. Apparel, handbags, footwear, belts and eyeglass frames would be covered. The measure also would establish penalties for designers or companies knocking off designs. The fine would be $250,000, or $5 for each copied item, whichever was more.

"The more acclaimed America's fashion designs become, the more they're copied," said Rodriguez in his testimony, citing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimate of $12 billion in lost revenues due to counterfeiting and piracy in the fashion and apparel industry in 2006.

Rodriguez said he designs and puts together a 250-piece collection in one year over the course of six to 12 months for the fall and spring runway shows, which cost an average of $800,000 to stage. The fabric for samples costs another $800,000, pattern and design development costs $1.5 million, travel for design and fabric development reaches $350,000 and marketing rings up another $2.5 million.

"There are so many aspects of a fashion business that make it risky in the best of circumstances and the pirates are only making it riskier," he said.

The designer, whose firm sold a 50 percent stake to Liz Claiborne Inc. last year, told lawmakers about his passion and inspiration for design, singling out the dress he designed for Carolyn Bessette when she wed John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1996. Rodriguez later sold 40 of those dresses.

"The pirates sold 7 to 8 million copies," he said. "It was very personal. I've been pirated so much that my brand has been diffused."

Young designers will not survive in the face of knockoffs that dilute the value of the original design, he told lawmakers, urging them to pass the bill.

But the bill's opponents argue that inspiration will be stifled by such legal restrictions, leaving thousands of companies exposed to frivolous lawsuits that could drive them out of business.

Steve Maiman, co-owner of Stony Apparel Corp., a moderate women's and children's apparel manufacturer based in Los Angeles, carried the flag for those in the industry who oppose the bill.

"Extending the copyright laws to the fashion industry is thoroughly a bad idea,' said Maiman. "The bill is misguided and unnecessary, for several reasons."

Maiman told lawmakers the fashion industry has thrived without "help or interference" from this type of copyright law. He argued that it is "impossible to determine the originality of a design because all designs are inspired by existing designs and trends."

Maiman also said the bill would spark a steady stream of lawsuits and expose retailers to liability as well.

"We're in this business to make cute garments at a fair price for the average American, not to sit in depositions in copyright lawsuits, arguing with lawyers over who invented an original style...of a kid's top for $14.99 retail before it goes on sale," Maiman said in his testimony.

[reese06]

It's been very hard for me to choose a side on this topic especially with designer's prices skyrocketing. I mean I don't think that places should be able to sell knock off bags with the actual logo on them but sometimes when it comes to clothing that just looks similar, I'm not sure that there should be a copyright.

[Spike413]

^ I know what you mean, but in the cases of a designer item being knocked off entirely, there is no justification and the original should be copyrighted.

Artwork is, photography is, sculptures are, music is, and yet all of those things cause a trickle down effect, one artist being inspired by another. But if an artist were to actually copy a piece by another, it's a pretty black and white case, the original artist is protected.

All I can say is a very enthusiastic FINALLY. This whole issue goes back to the fact that no one regards fashion as anything more than "just clothes". Designer's work isn't taken seriously outside of a high fashion environment, and therefore knockoff artists can justify doing what they do as being strictly business. It's high time that changed.

[Alejandro]

oh please..... narciso is such a crybaby

[Spike413]

^ Would you be willing to sit back and take it when mid-market chain stores were copying your designs?

Anyone who says they wouldn't care about something like that is either lying, or has no concept of what it would be like to feel like your work and ideas were stolen from you for a profit, regardless of how "boring", "uncreative" or "tacky" those ideas are.

And something I thought of that's good to keep in mind. A big reason why so many high end designers' prices have been increasing so steadily is because more and more, designers are using details and techniques that can't easily be reproduced at a mass-market pricepoint in an attempt to stop the copycats.

[Madhuri]

I can understand fabric designers suing if someone copies a pattern. On what basis would a designer sue if they make a strapless dress with a sweetheart neckline and someone else makes a similar design? There are very few designs in fashion that have not been done before. Who owns the rights to a baby doll dress or Empire waist gown?

[Scott]

wow i had no idea narciso was spearheading this. you know,i feel very strongly that copy-cats of all forms should be held accounted as there is just no justification for it except pure unscrupled profit. when you steal a designers idea,you tend to steal away part of their identity. and you know,i am not a fan of rodriguez,but i respect the fact that he's been very genuine in every aspect of his body of work. and therefor he has every right to do this. what i would like to see more of however,are more designers that have the gall to start taking on these high-fashion corporate brands who rip-off other designers just as easily as chain-stores. i mean,hello prada is one the biggest culprits....marc jacobs....nicholas at balenciaga has been known to plagerise as well. so it's fairly obvious and quite often talked about but no one prominent has really stepped up to the plate.

[gius]

nicholas @ balenciaga

*sigh* the things you miss if you're not familiar with many many designers

all the media attention almost solely focused on the most rich labels (dior etc)

[MUXU]

^rich as in currently rich or historically overrated rich.
cause even though i personally think Balenciaga was more of the brilliant designer of his time, commoners know Dior the best.

it's hard to copyright the design of the garment, but there are certain design details that is very obviously new and never thought of before that should be copy righted. im not talking about general designs like empire waist or high waist,low waist or crew neck, v-neck etc etc. but there are certain design details such as the jacket lapel emerged with waist coat suit jacket designed by John Galliano for Dior, the collar detail there has never been done and very much John's idea. i mean, this kind of thing can be copyrighted.

this brings up another question, is it ok to copy or get 'inspired' by dead designers?
i mean, i have seen fine art artists that copy dead artist's style and go on to be famous. so is it ok to copy a dead designer like Balenciaga for example.

[BerlinRocks]

i'm not sure 'artworks' (paintings, sculpture, installations etc.) are copyright....
music for sure.... but once again the 'samples' do exist (just listen to hip hop music)

i'm ok for Couture but R2W...? i don't know....

i think this is kind of ironic in a country where you know Jackie O. asked american designers to copy european designers.....

[Spike413]

MUXU, I think regardless of being dead or alive, to blatantly copy another designer's work is wrong, and could probably fall under this category. Finding inspiration or being influenced by is a totally different story.

I'm pretty sure that any other kind of original artwork would be copyrighted. That whole thing a year ago when the artist sued Galliano and the photographer for making a campaign that was heavily influenced by his work. He may not have won, but there was a case there.

[reese06]

I'm going to post a link to the Outfit Look-alikes thread because I think it's quite relevant for this topic. Copyrighting in the fashion industry would change it quite significantly. It seems big designers are the main ones copying big designers. Take a look..It's quite an interesting thread.

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums...kes-21826.html

[gius]

Originally Posted by BerlinRocks

i'm not sure 'artworks' (paintings, sculpture, installations etc.) are copyright....

artworks definitely have copyright

[Scott]

i think there's a fine line between what's considered copied and what's influenced when talking of perished designers. and i think nicolas,for example,obviously teetered toward blatant rip offs. if it's to the degree that it looks exactly like a replication,then yes i personally have a problem with that. but if you take elements away and reinterpret them;twist them into your aesthetics,that's fine. but,i think that's slightly different than copying current designers and peers that are still active and still making a strong identity and still creating a strong business. and therein lies an even deeper situation in which the people that do so are taking those ideas and making their own businesses stronger. and alot of the times it is the big designers stealing the smaller designers ideas not other big designers,in fact.

[baddabling]

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums...1-a-65378.html

^link to a thread that is quite relevant to this topic