Steal this Look : A Look Inside Forever 21

[KhaoticKharma]

I really want to see this one pic of the Changs.


I have to agree with my fellow poor tFsers; I can barely afford Forever 21! I am not going to save all of my paychecks for a Marc Jacobs bag because I have more important things, like gas and insurance, to take care of. It's a bit unfair to deny being fashionable to those of us without means. Forever 21 isn't stealing away possible couture customers, trust me.

That said, I personally prefer stores like TJ Maxx, where you can get slightly imperfect or overstocked items for a fraction of the pice they normally are. And I have to agree with TheKiwi, I've got a few things from F21 that, honestly, have lasted me better than the things from H&M.

[TheKiwi]

^ I'm glad someone agrees with me! And I agree with your point about how Forever 21 isn't stealing away couture customers. But I think the issue most people have with Forever 21 isn't that they're stealing customers, but that it isn't fair for one person to spend $300 on an authentic designer top and then see someone walking down the street in a knock-off version that they bought for $19.99 at F21. I've seen a lot of very blatant knock-offs at F21 of Marc Jacobs stuff. I think F21 should focus more on making cute clothes that are keeping up with trends, but aren't blatantly ripping them off.

[zzirvingj]

Originally Posted by OhJane

I went to a couple of Forever 21 stores when I was visiting the US last year. The quality is AWFUL, buttons falling off with the slightest touch, wonky stitching, loose stitching & cheap fabric. Kinda like Primark over here in the UK I guess?

Also, I don't understand those who buy it just because 'oh it's cheap!', because it falls apart after a few wears...why not save a few more $ and buy something better quality that will last longer?

Because some people like the idea of "self destructive clothing"...or rather, let me say that it's not that big of a deal to a lot of people that the clothing they purchase from F21 only lasts one season because the clothing they sell is so trendy, it's only going to be in style for that one season anyways.

*Of course, not every single piece in their store is that way...I bought a very basic brown sweater from there 3 years ago for less than 20 bucks that still looks like new today.

[zzirvingj]

Originally Posted by Spike413

^ But it's not as if there's only an option of buying the overpriced designer item or buying the cheaply made knockoff. There's a lot of grey area due to the whole trickle down effect, plenty of companies, private labels and chain stores provide fashionable clothes at more reasonable prices and decent quality. And while they most likely take a lot of inspiration from what the high end designers show, they all don't blatantly rip it off, they take a sleeve here, a silhouette there, adopt a similar print....

Just because something is expensive and some may deem it overpriced (which truly is in the eye of the beholder) doesn't justify stealing the design to make a huge profit.

ITA with you...

[zzirvingj]

Originally Posted by OhJane

I'm aware that some folk have financial difficulties, but a lot of people shop there that can afford to shop elsewhere. They only buy it because it's 'cheap fast fashion' - that I don't get. Why would you want to buy something that's 'trendy' for 5 minutes?

That is exactly why people DO buy from places like F21--why pay more for an item because it'll last for 5 years if all you want is a TRENDY item that fits a TREND that's only going to be around for 5 minutes?

May be hard to understand, but just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is what it means to be fashionable.

[zzirvingj]

Thanks to the OP for posting this article...this was a very interesting read. When it comes down to it, I agree that what they are doing is wrong...it is wrong to steal others' designs.

Does anyone here follow Scafidi's site (counterfeitchic.com)? She's got some interesting info on her FAQ's page:

http://faqs.counterfeitchic.com/
--------------------------------------------------

1. Doesn’t intellectual property law protect fashion?
It depends – and it’s complicated. Here’s a very general description of U.S. law in the area. Keep in mind that the law is constantly changing, and that each country’s law is different. In terms of the spectrum of legal protection for fashion design, the U.S. level is quite low.
Intellectual property law actually refers to several categories of protection, including trademark, copyright, and patent. Additional forms of protection exist, particularly in foreign law. Each category can be used to protect certain aspects of fashion, but most intellectual property laws were not written with clothing or accessories in mind.
Trademarks are the symbols used to indicate the source of goods – think Chanel Cs or the ubiquitous Nike swoop. They can appear on packaging, on the label, or as part of the design of the item itself. This is the strongest and cheapest protection available for luxury goods, especially if the trademark is registered with the government. Trade dress is a subset of trademark law that might protect the overall look of an item itself, if that item is iconic – the Hermès Birkin bag, for example.
Copyright protects literary and artistic works, but not functional creations. That rules out most fashion, unless (and here’s the tricky part) the design is separable from the function. Don’t worry if that doesn’t make sense; courts don’t yet agree on exactly how this works either. One simple example is a T-shirt with a picture on the front. The picture can be conceptually removed and protected by copyright; the T-shirt itself is not protected.
So, is fashion art? Counterfeit Chic’s patron saint/avenging angel Coco Chanel said no, but the question is still open to debate.
Patents apply to new inventions – convenient if you’re a scientist working on the next Velcro or Spandex, but not if you’ve only raised hemlines for spring. The process of obtaining a patent is also expensive and time-consuming; do not try this at home.
And just when you thought you understood all of this and were ready for the exam, there’s something called a design patent, which can protect the aesthetic elements of an item.
Well, with all of this law out there, why can discounters copy a designer’s runway look before it even hits the stores?

A new clothing or accessory design typically falls between the cracks of the intellectual property system. The label is probably protected by trademark, but the design may not yet be sufficiently iconic to be protected by trade dress. Since the item is functional, copyright doesn’t apply. Very few garments or accessories actually meet the standards of patentability; even if they did, getting a patent takes months or years.
So what’s a designer to do? Get to work on next season.


2. Counterfeits, knock-offs, replicas, copies, high street versions – what’s the difference?

Translated into legalese, “counterfeits” refer to trademarks or trade dress reproduced without authorization – that is, illegal goods.

The term “infringing” indicates violation of trademark, copyright, or patent law. In common usage, “fake” also typically refers to prohibited items; additional consumer protection laws may apply.

Depending on the context, the other terms may refer either to illegal activity or simply to forms of manufacturing that are not particularly original. Oh, and “high street”? That’s British for a town’s main shopping street, where chain stores may sell their own versions of the latest designer frock. What was that about two countries separated by a common language?

3. If counterfeit handbags, sunglasses, DVDs, etc. are illegal, why are they so easy to find online and on the street?

Law enforcement resources are limited, and pursuing counterfeiters is expensive. This issue is especially controversial in less affluent countries and in countries without major creative industries that would benefit from enforcement.

And let’s face it, the market responds to consumer demand . . .

[espritDEcouture]

Originally Posted by disco54

their stuff is of extremely cheap material , none the less , the fashion houses which are suing them are sort of petty , you will never see houses like YSL, Prada or Lanvin giving a f*** because in fashion , imitation is the highest form of flatter. Anyways , IMO , Forever21 has deteriated in the past 2 years , save for a few tshirts and tops , their pants and skirts are horrible in fitting . They will burst at one point . For people who do want to be cheap chic , its the place to go , but lately lots of the F21 , is stale IMO and bad quality.

Agreed. I also don't shop there as I don't like to buy poorly-made clothing.

[Sephora_Socialite]

Originally Posted by lucy92

i have a feeling that the companies that forever 21 hires to manafacture and design the garments are using other brands as "samples".

a few years ago marie claire did a big story about wage abuse at their Los Angeles factory...

My friends family owns one of garment factories that manufacture for Forever 21....they make for other stores too like Bebe and sometimes you'll see similarities in their designs so there's some truth in that I think. I never asked my friend though.

As for the Changs, theyre interesting people....hardcore bible thumpers...but I must say, after being by their house, my god that is lavish sh*t that it's kinda contradictory to their religious life....Only thing I give them kudos- they speak spanish to their maids instead of boss them around in spanglish.

[2Nova]

Originally Posted by lucy92

a closer look at the bag...
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/

HOLY CRAP! i literally just pulled out a bag to look at it

[Fashionturnip]

These shops are only so popular bc of the "fast fashion" thing that is big at the moment. People will mix a £3 tee with a £500 (or more) bag.

Give it a few years and things will change----people will bore of the poor quality cheap items....how the stores will change is debatable? Will they bother following consumers desires for better quality pieces?? *shrug* Who knows.....but im sure people will tire of spending there hard earned cash on an item that falls apart after a few wears.

[nat_attak]

Originally Posted by TheKiwi

But I think the issue most people have with Forever 21 isn't that they're stealing customers, but that it isn't fair for one person to spend $300 on an authentic designer top and then see someone walking down the street in a knock-off version that they bought for $19.99 at F21. I've seen a lot of very blatant knock-offs at F21 of Marc Jacobs stuff. I think F21 should focus more on making cute clothes that are keeping up with trends, but aren't blatantly ripping them off.

^ i agree. i started shopping at forever 21 about a year or two ago and i'm not embarrassed to own their clothes. i can afford designer clothing sometimes, but i don't think it hurts to mix and match your closet with inexpensive/expensive. i have to say though, i don't agree with them ripping off the textiles and patterns of the brand names. that's just not right and that's not something i would buy from them. as far as quality goes, it's not that bad! people are saying the buttons fly off of those garments all the time but that's not necessary the case. before you buy something, don't you want to check out the quality first? i would buy the ones that are good cotton material and something that would get ruined after the first wash. there quality is pretty much the same as say, urban outfitters anyway! except urbn would charge 50 bucks for a top, as suppose to F21 for 10. i like F21 and i think it has some pretty cute items if you look through their store. you just got to be selective and have an eye for good items i think.

[Madhuri]

Is see the pendulum swinging back in favor or higher-priced, better quality, harder-to-get clothing eventually. The whole dressing beneath ones income and mixing high and low has been the rage for a few years now. Stores like F21 have made trends so accessible that EVERYONE is wearing the latest fashions and looking like clones albeit trendy clones. Having something that no one else can afford will probably come back in Vogue.

[kimberwyn]

There's a whole lot of snobbery up in here!

The pieces that Marc Jacobs or any of the big designers are doing arent new or innovative or original. They are the leaders of trends, yes, but they are also inspired by many things including past trends. So I don't have a problem with F21 doing a nearly exact knockoff of a Marc Jacobs coat that was an exact knockoff of something produced in the 60s or 70s.

And I kind of agree with Sarah Jessica Parkers saying "fashion isnt a priveledge, its a RIGHT". I think everyone deserves to be able to wear the latest styles that high end designers are creating.

[2Nova]

^amen

[zzirvingj]

Originally Posted by kimberwyn

There's a whole lot of snobbery up in here!

The pieces that Marc Jacobs or any of the big designers are doing arent new or innovative or original. They are the leaders of trends, yes, but they are also inspired by many things including past trends. So I don't have a problem with F21 doing a nearly exact knockoff of a Marc Jacobs coat that was an exact knockoff of something produced in the 60s or 70s.

And I kind of agree with Sarah Jessica Parkers saying "fashion isnt a priveledge, its a RIGHT". I think everyone deserves to be able to wear the latest styles that high end designers are creating.

I understand what you are saying but I also feel that there is a difference between being "inspired" and "stealing". You can be inspired and still come up with an original design (original meaning you created the design yourself--I clarify because some people would argue that there's "nothing new under the sun", and therefore nothing original in fashion---I'm not saying that's what *I* believe...I'm just saying.)

As far as everyone deserving to be able to wear the latest styles that high end designers are creating...isn't that what people are already doing (i.e. knockoffs?)?