Crimes of fashion
Last month I was strolling through the London streets after dining on Conduit Street and decided to use New Bond Street as a short cut to Oxford Street. This is when I came across something I had often heard about but never witnessed: a woman standing...
Last month I was strolling through the London streets after dining on Conduit Street and decided to use New Bond Street as a short cut to Oxford Street. This is when I came across something I had often heard about but never witnessed: a woman standing outside one of the beautiful shop windows (there's nothing strange there, but read on!) was taking photographs of the clothes on display.
This is "Stage One" in the life of a copy. Copies destroy the work and creativity involved in the creation of the original, and flood the market with cheap versions of haute couture items from the moment they step onto the runway. In the past, similar items would appear a year after the high fashion original, but copying has now become astonishingly easy and fast. Some copies are amazingly accurate and from a short distance look exactly like the priceless original. However, on closer inspection one notices that the "knockoff" is made of low quality material and craftsmanship - explaining the stark difference in price.
Do not think that counterfeits are limited to fake Gucci and
LV handbags. Counterfeiting dresses hot off the red carpet and making them available for a fraction of the price is a booming business. By way of example, designer Narciso Rodriguez, who designed Carolyn Bessette's wedding dress to JFK Jr., said that eight million copies of that dress flooded the market.
The US presently has this under the spotlight with a Bill, entitled the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, working its way through Senate which aims to extend the copyright protection of vessel hulls to fashion designs - both perceived as utilitarian designs. Protection is sought for all forms of apparel: clothes, undergarments, eye-glass frames and accessories, and will last for three years.
The Bill lists infringing acts, and is cautious in granting exceptions. It protects images of the designs as well as the designs themselves, with infringement arising even if the image is made into a garment - which reconciles to the concept of adaptations and derivative works in copyright law. Senator Charles Schumer, proponent of the Bill, has stated that the Bill will differentiate between knockoffs and garments that are merely similar.
This has been inevitably met with mixed reactions. Supporters such as Diane Von Furstenberg, president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, agree that protection will boost the work of up-and-coming designers, and will give authors of works the credit they deserve. On the other hand, the argument is that fashion is mainly influenced by past trends, and that such legislation would stifle designers' creative expression.
Across the "pond" in Europe, designs are protected by copyright as an artistic work. The late designer YSL sued Ralph Lauren in French courts in 1994 for copying his famous "tuxedo dress" and was awarded damages. However, designers do not sue for copying as much as one would imagine.
There also is the Registered (RCD) and Unregistered (UCD) Design Rights - which are available at an EU-wide level. The RCD protects designs for five years renewable till a maximum of 25 for designs which are new and have individual character, while the UCD gives a three year "automatic" protection. However, when looking realistically at the fashion world and the trends it churns out every six months, the argument in favour of an RCD slips away.
It takes a number of months for an application for an RCD to be examined by the Intellectual Property Offices, and by the time the right is granted, people would have moved on to the next season's trend. Ah, but what about classics, like the little black dress, or the Chanel suit?
These have shaped fashion trends for decades, becoming a staple part of our fashion vocabulary. They serve as the best example of the argument that copying popularises trends. For these extraordinary cases the RCD makes more sense.
The three years' "automatic" protection given via the UCD protects against deliberate copying. There are no fees or waiting times involved, and this suits designers better. In January this year, UK designer Karen Millen sued Dunnes stores for copying some of its clothes and won the case on infringement of the UCD.
Moving on to other intellectual property tools, trade mark law protects brand names, while patent law has been used to protect the creation of new, special fabrics - for example fabrics that do not crease. As can be seen, these rights do not protect the clothes themselves.
Increased awareness brought about by new and international risks to fashion designers' creations has pushed them to understanding what the law can do for them. This, however, has uncovered the unique business reality the fashion industry has created for itself which is as fast as it is fierce.
• Dr Rizzo specialises in Intellectual Property Law and Art Law, Fenech & Fenech Advocates.
This is "Stage One" in the life of a copy. Copies destroy the work and creativity involved in the creation of the original, and flood the market with cheap versions of haute couture items from the moment they step onto the runway. In the past, similar items would appear a year after the high fashion original, but copying has now become astonishingly easy and fast. Some copies are amazingly accurate and from a short distance look exactly like the priceless original. However, on closer inspection one notices that the "knockoff" is made of low quality material and craftsmanship - explaining the stark difference in price.
Do not think that counterfeits are limited to fake Gucci and
LV handbags. Counterfeiting dresses hot off the red carpet and making them available for a fraction of the price is a booming business. By way of example, designer Narciso Rodriguez, who designed Carolyn Bessette's wedding dress to JFK Jr., said that eight million copies of that dress flooded the market.
The US presently has this under the spotlight with a Bill, entitled the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, working its way through Senate which aims to extend the copyright protection of vessel hulls to fashion designs - both perceived as utilitarian designs. Protection is sought for all forms of apparel: clothes, undergarments, eye-glass frames and accessories, and will last for three years.
The Bill lists infringing acts, and is cautious in granting exceptions. It protects images of the designs as well as the designs themselves, with infringement arising even if the image is made into a garment - which reconciles to the concept of adaptations and derivative works in copyright law. Senator Charles Schumer, proponent of the Bill, has stated that the Bill will differentiate between knockoffs and garments that are merely similar.
This has been inevitably met with mixed reactions. Supporters such as Diane Von Furstenberg, president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, agree that protection will boost the work of up-and-coming designers, and will give authors of works the credit they deserve. On the other hand, the argument is that fashion is mainly influenced by past trends, and that such legislation would stifle designers' creative expression.
Across the "pond" in Europe, designs are protected by copyright as an artistic work. The late designer YSL sued Ralph Lauren in French courts in 1994 for copying his famous "tuxedo dress" and was awarded damages. However, designers do not sue for copying as much as one would imagine.
There also is the Registered (RCD) and Unregistered (UCD) Design Rights - which are available at an EU-wide level. The RCD protects designs for five years renewable till a maximum of 25 for designs which are new and have individual character, while the UCD gives a three year "automatic" protection. However, when looking realistically at the fashion world and the trends it churns out every six months, the argument in favour of an RCD slips away.
It takes a number of months for an application for an RCD to be examined by the Intellectual Property Offices, and by the time the right is granted, people would have moved on to the next season's trend. Ah, but what about classics, like the little black dress, or the Chanel suit?
These have shaped fashion trends for decades, becoming a staple part of our fashion vocabulary. They serve as the best example of the argument that copying popularises trends. For these extraordinary cases the RCD makes more sense.
The three years' "automatic" protection given via the UCD protects against deliberate copying. There are no fees or waiting times involved, and this suits designers better. In January this year, UK designer Karen Millen sued Dunnes stores for copying some of its clothes and won the case on infringement of the UCD.
Moving on to other intellectual property tools, trade mark law protects brand names, while patent law has been used to protect the creation of new, special fabrics - for example fabrics that do not crease. As can be seen, these rights do not protect the clothes themselves.
Increased awareness brought about by new and international risks to fashion designers' creations has pushed them to understanding what the law can do for them. This, however, has uncovered the unique business reality the fashion industry has created for itself which is as fast as it is fierce.
• Dr Rizzo specialises in Intellectual Property Law and Art Law, Fenech & Fenech Advocates.