copyrighting

[faust]

Congrats! It was an excellent paper, you deserved it!

Thanks

 

[fashionlives]

i would like to knoe how the copyrighting goes about in this industry in relation to designing clothing?

 

[softgrey]

fashion designs are basically not copyrighted...
do a search in the designers and collections section and you will find info regarding copyrights, who gets the credit...intellectual property laws...etc...

...

 

[starz1]

Can I copyright my designs used on my clothing?

Hi everyone, I REALLY need to protect my image of my future label now before somebody else does. The graphics that I will have made that will be used on the clothing, would I have it copyrighted for $45 for each design? (this site gave me that impression).
http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

Like, is this webiste all there is to having my work copyrighted?

 

[starz1]

Can I patent a certain type of design on a normal piece of clothing?

Hi, I have a question. For my collection, I have these certain designs that my label will be known for. Since they are not on the market, should I look into having them patented?
I would love for my designs to be patented, I believe they could because they arn't out there.

 

[Lena]

i dont want to dissapoint you but copyrights do not practically work very well at fashion industry, hence all those fake copies around

 

[BetteT]

Not sure if you are talking about a design for your actual label ... your logo, so to speak. If you are talking about something you are having designed for that purpose, I can give you a little insight to that world. If you are speaking of "copyrighting" your designs for your actual garments/line ... that's not something I can answer ... except to agree with Lena.

If you are using a graphic desinger ... they might be similar to photographers regarding copyrights and usuage rights ... and the copyright might actually belong to the graphic designer.

You'd then have to negotiate (pay for) the exclusive copy and usuage rights, which can be highly expensive. If it's a small time designer, he/she might be willing to release all rights to you (get it in writing), when you paid for the design.

I suggest that you consult a copyright attorney ... it's a legal area fraught with pitfallls, lawsuits and costly mistakes.

 

[jun3machina]

you may also do some research online regarding patents, artwork copyrights, etc....im in the same boat here and it seems even if you do copyright/patent/trademark your stuff, there's not much stopping a company from sticking a gold star sticker on it and calling it original.

 

[Luna]

In the fashion world, copyrights are very rare...

You might be able to trademark a logo or a graphic, or something, but not a desi gn for a dress or something of the like.

 

[emi25]

So how about photos? I just got this job at a magazine, where I have to do a page about trends every month...and I dont know what pictures I can use..

I take alot of them myself, but for example if I want to use a pic from the catwalk from Firstview or some site like that, how should I do?

I have to talk to the people in the magazine, I guess they can pay for it if they have to...

Does anyone know something about this?

 

[BetteT]

If you go to Firstview's site you'll see that they sell images for publication for on line sites and paper publications ... here's the link: http://firstview.com/page.php?i=7 Oh, by the way, according to the info on FirstView's site, you can't even see the current season's fashion shows unless you are a paid subscriber ... and that's like $500 to $1000 a year or $6 an hour. That is how they make money ... from magazines, etc. who need the very latest from the shows.

There are tons of images for sale on other sites too ... like Getty, in their editorial section. You or the magazine does have to pay for them. The prices are on their site by each image you want, but it looks like you need to have an account to get prices: http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/home/home.aspx

I think that you may publish your own photos without model relseases if they are from public fashion shows, etc. since it's considered news ... if you are given access to the shows by the producers. But I'm not an attorney ... so I'm not positive about that. The magazine should have a legal advisor on staff and should be able to give you the laws regarding all of that.

But you may not publish anyone's else's images on line or in a paper mag without specific usage rights ... and in most cases, that means you must pay for them ... unless the photographer wants free publiciity.

 

[emi25]

Thanks a lot! That was more or less what I thought! I guess I do some drawings from the shows...

How about paparazzi-pictures? Just because I'm curious...Do you neeed the permisson from the person on the photo or from the photographer? Or both?

If I (for example) want to use a picture of a Warhol print, I have to pay to someone for sure...but if I take a picture of myself in an exibition, in front of that print, is that OK? If you see more of me that the print? Or if I take a picture of a poster...

Or...If I print pictures from the fashion shows...as polaroids (made in photoshop) and I put them all on a wall and I take a picture of that...all a bit blurred...Should that be OK?

It's great that I found someone that knows about this...

Thanks a lot!

//Em

 

[ingvildel]

How about paparazzi-pictures? Just because I'm curious...Do you neeed the permisson from the person on the photo or from the photographer? Or both?

You need permission from the photographer, but if the paparazzi had permission from the person on the photo it should be okey, if not you probably need permission from the person as well, but I'm really not sure about this. I don't think paparazzies usually gets permission from the persons on their photos (But if you buy the photo from the photographer (s)he should tell you what you can use it for and what you can't.

If I (for example) want to use a picture of a Warhol print, I have to pay to someone for sure...but if I take a picture of myself in an exibition, in front of that print, is that OK? If you see more of me that the print? Or if I take a picture of a poster...

If you where allowed to take pictures on that exibition for the purpose you're gonna use it for this would be okey.

Or...If I print pictures from the fashion shows...as polaroids (made in photoshop) and I put them all on a wall and I take a picture of that...all a bit blurred...Should that be OK?

I think this would be okey, but it would be a good idea to check it out with the ones you work for.

I hope someone can clarify this, since I'm not sure about all of it.

 

[emi25]

Thanks a lot...It makes sense!...

 

[BetteT]

This is a very gray area ... it's disputed by people more knowledgeable than us. If you ar going into business, you cannot afford to get involved in lawsuits over pictures. To be sure ... see an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing ... I think they call it "intellectual properties" ... which means things like art, photography, writings etc.

 

[Lena]

fresh article on meassures protecting fashion designs in the US , from wwd.com

Copyrighting a Dress: Congress Mulling Bill To Protect Designers
Published: Thursday, April 26, 2007
by Kristi Ellis

WASHINGTON — Knock off a dress design and go to jail.

Maybe not quite, but a new bill designed to put real teeth into copyright protection for fashion designs is now before Congress.

The specter of fashion design piracy sends shivers down the backbone of the fashion industry, but defining "piracy," "knockoffs" and "original" designs under intellectual property laws has proven elusive. Trademark laws protect designer logos and patent law periodically applies to "innovative or ornamental" design elements. Prints and artwork are protected by intellectual property laws, but fashion designs have no protection under copyright laws.

That is why fashion designer Nicole Miller and others came to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby lawmakers, many of whom sit on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, which have jurisdiction over intellectual property laws, on a bill they hope will change the law.

"Design piracy denigrates the integrity of the style," said Miller. "This year, we have been copied more than we have in past years. With this legislation, people will be deterred from making everything too literal. It's the line-for-line copies that bother me."

Diane von Furstenberg, the new president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, is involved in the aggressive campaign on Capitol Hill.

"It has gotten to a point at which, unless we get regulation, people will continue to boast about copying," said von Furstenberg, famous for her ubiquitous wrap dress. "Laws are really about intimidation, and we need to have a little law here and a little intimidation. By passing a law, we emphasize the value of designs. It is not an elitist thing. Even Target and Wal-Mart are beginning to use designers in their stores."

Miller, joined by Glenda Bailey, editor in chief of Harper's Bazaar, and Valerie Salembier, senior vice president and publisher of Harper's, pounded the halls of Congress on Wednesday to meet with key senators and House members, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), Benjamin Cardin (D., Md.), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R., Tex.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Utah).

She came to town as House lawmakers reintroduced the Design Piracy Prohibition Act that would amend current copyright law to allow companies and designers to register fashion designs for three years of copyright protection; apparel, handbags, footwear, belts and eyeglass frames would be covered. The measure would also establishes penalties for designers or companies knocking off designs. The fine would be $250,000, or $5 for each copied item, whichever was more.

The legislation, introduced by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) and Bill Delahunt (D., Mass.), would cover only fashion designs created after the law was enacted, according to Alain Coblence, an attorney representing the CFDA, who has worked closely with lawmakers crafting the bill.

"Anything that has been commerce in the United States until the actual promulgation of the law is in the public domain" and can be copied, Coblence said.

While Miller acknowledged the bill was a step in the right direction. She said it stopped short of giving her protection for past designs, such as a blouse she brought back this year from a collection in the Eighties. In addition, she said the legislation should cover designs for three years after the designer stops manufacturing them, not three years from the date they are registered.

"I have a dress that I started making in 1998 and I'm still running it," said Miller. "I get a lot of longevity out of my dresses and I don't see why, if I'm still manufacturing it, somebody has the right to copy it."

But the fashion industry remains somewhat divided over whether the federal government should play a role in fashion.

In everything from interpretations of Coco Chanel's "little black dress" to the Chanel jacket, designers have long made an art and business of copying, reinterpreting and reintroducing designs. While many designers have dodged the "copycat" moniker, others have embraced it.

Oleg Cassini went to his grave with the shadow hanging over him of whether he copied the designs of Hubert de Givenchy to clothe first lady Jacqueline Kennedy in the White House. Cassini always denied the claim and kept letters from Kennedy that backed him up.

David Wolfe, creative director for Doneger Creative Services, said in an interview when the bill was introduced last year, "My worry is that it will make people so frightened that fashion will stop dead in its tracks. I think fashion is like a live reef — all creatures feed off of one another and that stimulates growth and movement."

Allen B. Schwartz, founder and design director of A.B.S. by Allen Schwartz, who has built a portion of his multimillion-dollar business on copying designer gowns gracing the red carpets of the Academy Awards and other Hollywood awards shows, bristles at the concept of copyright protection for designs.

"Designers have for 100 years been going to Europe on boats and bringing inspirations from couture back and putting a spin on things," said Schwartz. "Nothing is original when it comes to silhouettes or a fabric."

Schwartz draws the line at prints, graphics and artwork, which he believes should be protected. As for the law under consideration, Schwartz said, "It's not a good idea. It will create a lot of disruption and litigation, and people will worry more about what they can and can't do as opposed to bringing fashion to the consumer."

The bill could have an impact on retailers such as H&M and Zara, which reinterpret runway designs and trends to sell to the public at lower prices, as well as on retailers' private label businesses.

"It is looking at fashion as an artistic expression and a unique design versus the commonplace belief that apparel is more utilitarian," said Liz Oesterle, government relations council at the National Retail Federation. "The question is, can you protect something that is a commonplace good versus something that is unique and special? We have members on both sides of the issue."

She said retailers that have their own labels or have close relationships with high-end designers might want the protection, while others are concerned the law is too broad and could place restrictions on trends.

source wwd.com