The Ownership of Creativity...

[softgrey]

haha, no tricky language, miss!! "Boil down to the same thing in practice."

tricky?...
i don't think that's tricky..i'm just saying...it's the same thing in the end...

what's wrawng wit da way i tawk???

 

[helena]

you know...i was hoping for some expert legal opinions here...

as you can tell I was giving this a body swerve for that very reason! There's me as a lawyer speaking & me as a fashion lover - n'er the twain shall meet! thats why i avoided the Helmut Lang thread to an extent as well - I can see and argue both sides of all these arguements. Sorry if I am being a bit crap as a result.

 

[softgrey]

well helena...it's no fun if no one argues the other side...if everyone just says...oh yes...oh yes...that gets pretty boring no?...plus i always like to see things from another perpective......

i always share my professional expertise with you guys...

 

[Johnny]

wether it be the idea or the physical manifestation of the idea...doesn't it boil down to the same thing in practice?...

Nope - there's a crucial difference. Copyright stops you copying something. The something is a drawing, a musical notation, a dress: it's not the idea that allowed you to produce those things. Before you're in breach of copyright you need to almost exactly copy the thing that the idea produced. However, there's nothing to stop you taking the idea and using it as the basis for another thing that's very similar. So, if you hear elevator music and it sounds familiar but not quite right, it's because whoever's produced it has tweaked it slightly so that it's not a copy. So no need to pay royalties. You can keep the structure, the production style, the instrumentation, but so long as you change the melody sufficiently it's not a copy. In that case, the idea has been entirely stolen, but the song not copied.

Other types of IPR protection like patent rights are more flexible and don't require copying as such for infringement.

 

[faust]

Nope - there's a crucial difference. Copyright stops you copying something. The something is a drawing, a musical notation, a dress: it's not the idea that allowed you to produce those things. Before you're in breach of copyright you need to almost exactly copy the thing that the idea produced. However, there's nothing to stop you taking the idea and using it as the basis for another thing that's very similar. So, if you hear elevator music and it sounds familiar but not quite right, it's because whoever's produced it has tweaked it slightly so that it's not a copy. So no need to pay royalties. You can keep the structure, the production style, the instrumentation, but so long as you change the melody sufficiently it's not a copy. In that case, the idea has been entirely stolen, but the song not copied.

Other types of IPR protection like patent rights are more flexible and don't require copying as such for infringement.

Johnny!!! I will be picking your brain on the subject for the next few months, if you don't mind. I'm taking a sociology class that deals with the ever-increasing copyright and patent protection that has become a bit frenetic after the explosion of the internet created the ability to share ideas more freely.

Meet my professor http://www.dmc.mq.edu.au/mwark/warchive/cv/cv-resume.html

 

[Johnny]

Johnny!!! I will be picking your brain on the subject for the next few months, if you don't mind. I'm taking a sociology class that deals with the ever-increasing copyright and patent protection that has become a bit frenetic after the explosion of the internet created the ability to share ideas more freely.

Meet my professor http://www.dmc.mq.edu.au/mwark/warchive/cv/cv-resume.html

Hmmm. Not sure I'll be much help, but happy to try.

 

[faust]

tricky?...
i don't think that's tricky..i'm just saying...it's the same thing in the end...

what's wrawng wit da way i tawk???

Well, Johnny said that there is a difference between and idea and its manifistation, and you kinda said that there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice Kapish?! Or am I overanalyzing here?

 

[faust]

Hmmm. Not sure I'll be much help, but happy to try.

Bah, of course you can help. I'm not asking for law advise, I'm asking for an intellectual opinion of someone who has (working) knowledge of copyright/patent law and the idea behind it.

 

[kit]

there are trend forecasting agencies...i think the big ones are in europe...and i believe they are usually working 2 yrs ahead...

Don't the Italians make a mint publishing forecast magazines like COLLEZIONI TRENDS that set the mood .

WGSN has sections on trends for 2 years ahead .

When I first started to go to London to buy my clothes , I was surprised by the way that all the major designers' pieces were very much in the same vein each season - YSL Rive Gauche , Cerruti 1881 , Ted Lapidus , Christian Aujard etc etc ALL did practically identical pieces .

Looking at TFS , that does not seem to be quite the same today .

Just a thought

 

[softgrey]

Nope - there's a crucial difference. Copyright stops you copying something. The something is a drawing, a musical notation, a dress: it's not the idea that allowed you to produce those things. Before you're in breach of copyright you need to almost exactly copy the thing that the idea produced. However, there's nothing to stop you taking the idea and using it as the basis for another thing that's very similar. So, if you hear elevator music and it sounds familiar but not quite right, it's because whoever's produced it has tweaked it slightly so that it's not a copy. So no need to pay royalties. You can keep the structure, the production style, the instrumentation, but so long as you change the melody sufficiently it's not a copy. In that case, the idea has been entirely stolen, but the song not copied.

Other types of IPR protection like patent rights are more flexible and don't require copying as such for infringement.

i completely understand...that is how i understand it...thanks...
from what i remember ...there is actually a specified percentage that has to be different...in order for it not to be considered a copy...i don't remember what the number is though...

but you are right...the rampant copying of a basic idea is really what's taking place...not so much the exact duplication of garments...i do see the difference...

i'm curious to know how much you have to change...for example...if you do the exact garment but just change the buttons or the colour...i don't think that is enough...but what if it's the same but one has sleeves and one doesn't?...where is the line drawn...?

 

[softgrey]

something screwy is going on

 

[softgrey]

i'm having trouble posting...anyone else?...

 

[valak]

I'm also having some trouble.

 

[softgrey]

darn...

 

[valak]

It's going better now...

 

[marrimoda]

another leader or major leader in the forecasting of trends are the textile companies. The designers pick up on these trends at shows like pitti imagine something-or-other filati I dont remember right now the exact name but its one of the major textile shows premiervision being theother. and they come out about 2 years ahead....isnt this right softgrey?

 

[luxmode]

There's also color trend forecasting agencies.

Li Edelkoort has an agency in Paris. She puts out an AMAZING magazine twice a year called View on Colour. Love her...she also did a show last year called [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] ARMOUR: The Fortification of Man. Check it out:

http://www.designvormgeving.nl/pagina/1armour.htm



[/font]

 

[softgrey]

It's going better now...

i've made a report...
yes marrimoda...that's a good point...i think lena always goes to premierevision...and designer friends of mine do as well...

you're definitely right about textiles being the starting point for many trends...

 

[softgrey]

pantone is a HUGE colour forecasting resource too...

 

[helena]

ok... the ownership of creativity. I think its hard as the law has to strike a balance between protection of an idea and the development of that idea into something new = progress. Copyright is the only applicable 'right' I think we are talking about here - patents really only apply to something novel, like an invention & no matter how 'new' a jacket is, its not a new invention; trademarks can protect certain things like brands or logos but not really an 'idea'.

First of all I don't think copyright can protect an actual intangible idea as such. It has to be a representation of an idea. Thus, a drawing, a distinctive series of words which is clearly identifyable & is uncopied as such a series.... as could, in theory, a jacket. however, what you have a right to protect is that thing, that poem or that drawing etc It doesn't protect the idea but it protects what you 'made' with that idea. (Aside there is a registered design right in the UK (dunno much about the US) whereby in theory you could register the design of a jacket. However as with copyright, you are only protected from someone copying a substantial part of that thing - the onus of proof is on the person alleging the breach - difficult).

Secondly the protection is only from someone copying your thing substantially. So if they copy a bit of it & then change it a bit again the chances are that you will not be successful in your breach of copyright action. Also the person alleging the breach has to prove it to a court. I suppose you could say theres almost a presumption of 'innocence' on the person doing the copying which you have to disprove (like in a criminal case although the 'level' at which you have to prove it is different - on the balance of probablilities). Thats why its so hard to have a successful breach of copyright action.

Basically IP rights are there to protect investment into the development of a new thing (whether monetary or mere effort 'sweat of the brow') in effect a reward to the entrepreneur. However that has to be offset against the idea further innovation is good so the protection the law affords shouldn't lead to a monopoly which restricts competition and further innovation.

I don't know how the law could protect an idea or 'creativity' any further than it does already - surely its not possible to always create something entirely new. Most things are derived from developing other ideas one stage further - if 'creators' weren't allowed (by law) to use another idea as a starting point then how could things progress?

hope i am not boring you with this.....