The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article covering the fashion industry’s request that congress pass a bill giving copyright protection to its designs. You may remember that I took a copyright class last year, spent the summer working for a copyright firm, and that I’m going into copyright law after graduation. I have a thing or two to say about the fashion industry’s request.
At first I was completely against this maneuver. I thought it was a horrible idea. The last thing we need is federal regulation in yet another artistic field. The nature of art involves a certain degree of borrowing, and, yes, even ripping-off. Every artist in existence has ripped off other artists and co-opted other artists’ ideas. It’s how creativity works. Inspiration and what have you. No one has any new ideas anymore. It’s a matter of taking someone else’s idea and twisting it into something quasi-original.
But then I thought about all the counterfeit clothing and accessories that cut into fashion designers’ sales. Sure, maybe counterfeit products function as free advertising, and maybe those buyers wouldn’t and couldn’t afford some of those items and would never buy them anyway, but there’s something to be said for preventing others from making a blatant copy of a work and passing it off as their own. Case in point – music copyright law. Software copyright law. Any copyright law. The creator is entitled to protection of the unique expression of an idea (though not the idea itself).
There are more arguments, of course, but I won’t go into too much detail. OK, maybe a little. How would we enforce fashion copyright law? Will judges have to decide if one blouse rips off another one? Do we get experts to testify? Can you copyright simple classic designs, like the vertical blue-striped shirt I’m wearing right now that every guy owns? The WSJ article also brings up another issue – that the counterfeit market forces the fashion industry to adapt quickly and come up with new designs after last year’s designs saturate the market, and that this is good for fashion.
So what do you think? Should a dress’s cut be copyrightable? The look of a purse? The design of shoes?
Comments (6)
URL: http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog
Carrico says:"I like the BeDazzler." I say, "I'm guessing you weren't around in the 1970s, when these were first out." I'll let Chris Eccleston speak for me. I have diverted the discussion to the BeDazzler. My evil work here is done.
Posted by Michael | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16
i like the BeDazzler. It really jazzes up any wardrobe, and its fun for kids!
Posted by carrico | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16
URL: http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog
Oh, and I'd love to see an FIAA DMCA lawsuit against a mother-of-three with a sewing machine, or a sixteen-year-old who made her own prom dress. Does Singer become a manufacturer of a device promoting infringement? On the other hand, anything that could make the BeDazzler illegal isn't all bad.
Posted by Michael | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16
URL: http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog
Yep, that's why I said "I think". It's open to a lot of people's "I think" being different from mine. I agree that other visual arts add value to our culture, of course, but I don't agree that the line is all that blurry between them and fashion. Does upholstery deserve the same protection/provide the same artistic benefit to society as Uncle Tom's Cabin or Debbie Does Dallas? Fashion, as "the process of decoratively covering an overstuffed body with cloth" seems closer to upholstery than literature. I didn't say we'd be wearing fashions from people who died before 1936, we'd just have to pay for the rights to do anything but that. I'm not convinced that there's a public benefit or need to promote new expression in the fashion industry. Is there a problem to be solved by new law or just a bunch of designers who want the government to give them more money? [PS: Would it be possible to change the comments template so that I can see more than 5 lines of 5-6 words each in the entry dialog? It's hard to review my comment to make sure I'm making sense (yeah, a hard enough task as it is...) ]
Posted by Michael | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16
URL: http://
i agree with you that fashion is probably an art form, or that at least most people would argue it's more art than not. the other option - and the reason it's currently not copyright protected - is that it's classified as a 'craft,' whatever the hell that is. "Does the promotion of fashion add any value to the cultural life of US citizens? Frankly, I think here the answer is "no." " this is certainly subjective and i think a lot of people would make a contrary argument. the line between fashion and other visual arts is a blurry one. do other visual arts add value to our culture? i say yes, as i think many others would too. i disagree that we'd only be wearing fashions from people who died before 1936. do we only listen to music from people who died before 1936? it's amazing how altering the expression of an idea just a little bit will preclude a copyright infringement action. the idea behind copyright is to promote new expression of existing ideas. hence, microsoft can't copyright the idea of an electronic spreadsheet program, but it can copyright excel.
Posted by particleman | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16
URL: http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog
So copyright protection is a bargain entered into between the people (represnted by the state) and creators, in order to provide both with a benefit. The creator gets limited but legally enforcable rights to the use of their idea for a predetermined time and the state gets the idea in the end in the public domain. The government enforces this in order to promote creation of works of art. It has traditionally also applied to any works that can be written, even if they aren't particularly artistic, like computer programs and technical manuals. Other areas also provide restricted rights, such as patent and trademark provisions, which promote other goals, such as innovation and fair trade. So, there's a question, if the fashion industry wants copyright protection, of "is it art?" Maybe. Personally, I don't think it's art, but that's a hard question to say "no" to, and there is certainly protection available to more-traditional commercial artistic endeavors. Thomas Kinkade, urinator of light, is a strictly commercial endeavor, but is entitled for protection for his treakly crap. Does the promotion of fashion add any value to the cultural life of US citizens? Frankly, I think here the answer is "no." The part of the copyright bargain they bring to the Public Domain isn't worth the cost to us as a society of the protection. In addition, the effort to make this change would be pretty huge. If fashions were protected for current copyright's ridiculous "life of the creator + 70 years", public domain fashions would be wearing styles from designers who died in 1936 or earlier.
Posted by Michael | February 10, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:16