 |
| The amazing—and often copied—Galaxy Dress |
Wow, I loved all of your insightful comments on
my post about the $348 Nanette Lepore dress. (For the record, I haven't bought it—yet.) I especially enjoyed the differing opinions on what is considering "stealing" when it comes to knocking off designer clothes. It was fascinating to me that everyone seems to have their own personal moral compass when it comes to copying designs, and the range of what's considered acceptable varies hugely.
For instance, lots of people were (rightly, I think) shocked that someone would suggest buying the dress, taking it apart and copying it, re-stitching it and returning it. But many of these same commenters had no problem with buying and returning the dress to copy it, in a less invasive manner. Still others found the very idea of trying to copy the dress repugnant and a form of intellectual property theft.
The fashion industry itself has not set a very good example in this area: knockoffs are rampant because there's no real way to copyright a garment design. (Yet, anyway. There are proposed laws that would potentially change this.) And the sewing pattern companies have followed suit. While the Big Four pattern companies do license designs from designers like Michael Kors and Tracey Reese, just as often designs are copied without the designer's consent. Take the famous Roland Mouret Galaxy dress, which later cropped up in the very similar Vogue 8280:
And several of the aforementioned Nanette Lepore's designs have been copied as well, like this bow lapel jacket.
Here's McCall's 5815. Look familiar?
But then there's the question of the home seamstress knocking off designer clothes for themselves with a little ingenuity and spunk. While I'm not an advocate of stealing intellectual property, I have a hard time getting too worked up about this as a moral issue. Knocking off unaffordable designer clothes is the very reason many people get into sewing. I certainly do it! My
yellow dress design was taken directly from an Anthropologie dress. (For the record, I didn't buy the dress and return it; I just took some stealthy pictures in the dressing room and adapted the details.) Furthermore, as long as you're not mass producing replicas or selling the patterns you drafted off another designer's work, is there any harm in it? That's an honest question; I sincerely don't know for sure.
What do you all think? Where does this issue fall on your own moral compass?
I have no problem with it- as long as it's done for oneself and not chain selling stuff!
ReplyDeleteI love fashion, I love dresses but can't afford to buy everything I like (sigh). So I really want to learn proper sewing to make what I really want, at a fraction of the price. I don't think this really affects designers- their designs are not targeted at me with the small bank account.
I find the idea of copyrighting clothing design a strange one. There are only so many ways of covering a body, and fashions and designs keep reoccuring. Its quite hard to believe that something very similar to the galaxy dress hadn't been designed in the past - it is quite a simple dress after all.
ReplyDeleteIt's a minefield. Do any of us regular bloggers request copyright clearance before featuring a pattern cover on our blogs? Nope, me neither. I suspect it's to do with WHO is taking their inspiration from another design and WHY. Is the home sewist creating for herself committing a bigger crime than the high street store who rips off designs for profit, paying people in sweat shops to churn out copies? The answer to that question is obvious. I suspect one must rely on that niggling feeling at the back of the head: I don't feel comfortable with this. Would I be happy if someone did this to a design of mine? But as you say, Gertie, we all have vastly different moral compasses.
ReplyDeleteThere are no original designs in fashion, and designers steal ideas from each other all the time. So I have no trouble borrowing ideas from currect fashion for my personal use
ReplyDeleteAs a Girl with a fashion degree, this was one of the areas covered in classes. The main point is that most designs are either trickle up and/or trickle down. Designers take inspiration from the street and put it into high fashion where it trickles back down to the general population. Almost all clothing you see on the runway is a knock off of some kind. Some designers do it really well and create a signature piece that is instantly recognizable like the Channel jacket, making it more difficult to knock off.
ReplyDeleteMost of the time if you take that one detail that you have fallen in love with it and create something from it you aren't actually stealing. If you go into the designers studio and take the pattern and remake i,t that stealing. There is no reason I can't take that bow jacket and put long sleeves on it and call it my design, I changed a part of it, therefore it's no longer the original designers.
I don't see anything wrong with copying the design of a dress or using it as inspiration. Quite often there will be differences between the version that you made and the designer version, they're probably not going to be identical. A lot of the time the garment will be a basic shape because there's only so many styles that can go round and round again.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't buy a dress to trace round it and I definitely wouldn't take a dress apart and sew it back together again, but I don't see any harm in copying an idea, especially when designers charge so much for essentially just their name being associated with a garment.
If it's not done for profit - why not? It won't be exactly the same, and most of us add little details/alter fit etc. to suit our tastes/bodies. Also, making a dress "in the style of" is not the same as claiming that design as one's own.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminded me of something I read about Vionnet regarding copyright ( see third paragraph). Who'd have thought you could copyright a cutting technique?
When I were in Venice last year I saw an amazing dress in the shopping window of Max Mara. I took some pictures of it and back home I drafted a pattern based on those pictures. By copying it I could get the right fit and make some small design alterations to make it more me. As a private person I see no harm in steeling a design - we most get our inspiration from somewhere!
ReplyDeleteI'll admit I was very shocked at the comment that suggested taking the dress apart to copy it, sewing it back up again and returning it! To a lesser extent, I'm also shocked at people who 'borrow' clothes, wear them with the labels still attached and then return them to the shop afterwards. But hey, that's just where my moral compass lies. And I'm sure that I've done things that others would balk at, just not with clothes...
ReplyDeleteTrying to copy a dress for one's private use is a very different matter though. You've had to recreate the design yourself, the proportions might be different, you will have adapted it to fit your body, etc. The results will be personal because you'll have brought your own interpretation to the design. And at no point in doing so will you have destroyed the purity of an original garment to steal its design...
I think it really comes down to "fair use". As a home sewist, I may see something in a runway picture to at the local Anthropologie store (yes, I take stealthy dressing room pics too ;) that inspires me. I turn around and "copy" that idea for myself--and my own closet. There are a few things differing my version from the inspiration piece: the details will probably not be copied line for line, and the fabric will most likely have changed. I also do not plan on making the dress is multiples and selling them--that would be outright stealing the design, imho. Being inspired by something you see and making it for yourself is totally acceptable--after all, isn't that what women have been taking fashion images to dressmakers for centuries for?
ReplyDelete♥ Casey | blog
Oh, and I also wanted to chime in about buying a dress to copy the pattern from... I feel like that delves into muddy ethical waters. I'd be offended if someone did that with a piece of clothing if I owned a boutique. Sure, the larger manufacturers probably don't care, but still--I think "didyoumakethat" made a great point about that prick of conscious when contemplating something like this. Just my $0.02 though! ;)
ReplyDelete♥ Casey | blog
Making clothes inspired by designers for yourself sounds like a fun challenge actually. Everyone puts their own spin on it, except maybe the person who actually takes a dress apart to copy and then return it. That sounds ridiculous and honestly a lot more work than just trying to make your own!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, nothing is wrong when you knock off a designer piece, as long as you make it for yourself only. But I support the way you copied it only - by taking photos in a dressing room. I think it is terrible to buy a dress just to take it apart and make a copy. And sell it afterwards.
ReplyDeleteKnocking off a fashion design is ok. I think you will enjoy this: http://petiterepublic.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-fashion-of-copying/
ReplyDeletehi, Gertie, you know this store on etsy? hearmycloset
ReplyDeletehttp://www.etsy.com/listing/62122254/unique-galaxy-dress-fishtail-pencil
To me, the line past which it becomes unethical is buying a dress, copying it, and then returning it.
ReplyDeleteDesigning dresses based on pictures is something our foremothers have been doing for centuries; I think the first time I read about it was in one of the Little House books.
I also don't see anything wrong with copying an item from your own personal wardrobe. Whether it's replacing a much-beloved but worn-out garment that's no longer made, or remaking that dress you wear over and over in your favorite color, you're copying something you own. The designer and the manufacturer have gotten the money that's rightfully theirs.
(Obviously I'm talking making something for personal use, here. Making garments to sell is a whole nother can of worms, both legally and ethically.)
There is a tradition in the fine arts of copying masterworks as a way to learn how a great work of art is made.In that same spirit, I don't see anything wrong with a home seamstress copying a design, as long as he/she isn't selling the garment.As far pattern companies copying designer clothing goes- that's a bit stickier. You could make the argument that the pattern companies aren't affecting the market for designer clothes. That is, those of us buying the patterns aren't refraining from buying the designer garments just because there is a pattern available. Or is that just me? That being said, just because it might be legal for pattern companies to do this, I'd agree- when it's such an obvious knock off the ethics of it are very questionable.
ReplyDeleteWhat could be copyrighted in the Galaxy dress? Straight skirt? Square neckline? Cap sleeves? Who came up with those elements first? And who came up with that combination first? Reverse engineering is not copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion? No - you weren't going to buy it anyway so they will lose no business from you making yourself a copy. I think it is a stretch to buy it and return it, as you might cause some damage inadvertently or for some other reason cause the value of the garment to drop, but pictures or notes in the dressing room - not a problem to me.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to all of this basically is: that little Nanette Lapore jacket you pictured is really cute, I'd really like to have it so I think I'll go buy that McCall's pattern when it's next on sale. And I have made that Vogue dress in the sleeveless version (and it is one of my favourite quasi-dressy summer dresses, so chic!) and have intended for a few years now to make the sleeved version. And I will sleep perfectly well at night.
ReplyDeleteI relish the challenge of copying ready-to-wear! I've tried clothes on to inspect the details, but haven't done the buy-copy-return route; I agree that's not fair. I copy from pictures all the time; my favorite project was recreating Yves Saint Laurent's famous "Mondrian" dress; details on my blog: http://thereshesews.blogspot.com/2010/04/ysl-mondrian-dress-finished.html
ReplyDeleteI have no qualms whatsoever about copying a designer dress for personal use. Let's say I save up my pennies to buy a dress from (insert designer's name here). I'm excited, I run off to the store and what do I find, nothing is larger than a size 10, maybe a 12. The message I receive is that girls my size don't get to wear designer clothing, even if I had the money.
ReplyDeleteMy sewing is primarily historical. I purchased a childs Civil War dress pattern which the "pattern maker" and owner rails on and on about her own 'legal department' and refers people to it who are considering using the pattern for commercial purposes, which is her big NO NO. (Simplicity Civil War dresses are the same, but this is violated left and right as evidenced on ebay)
ReplyDeleteYou are legally restricted to using her pattern to make for someone hiring you to sew the dress, or to make for yourself. BUT you have to purchase a NEW pattern for each and every garment you create of it.
I don't know any serious sewist who actually cuts into their purchased patterns. That is the master, cut patterns are traced from this.
I realize the pattern maker has the right to be paid for their work, nuff said on that point. Unrealistic as it is, I get it.
But the pattern for this dress consists of nothing more than rectangles...and these rectangles have to be adjusted to the individual person.
She's copyrighted this pattern that's a rectangle. How can you copyright a rectangle? The dress is a style that was used universally by seamstresses/mothers around the world for nearly three decades.
Who's to say that I didn't purchase an old dress, take it apart and make my own pattern of the same rectangles? Isn't that legal?
How can a rectangle and for that matter, any antique clothing design be one person's intellectual property?
I say it's okay to use another's design for inspiration for our own use.
It's not okay to copy the garment, set up shop and sell it for your own profit off the designers name.
If you're not blackmarketing it, I say go for it.
I agree with you. It's alright to be inspired with desogners work if it's not to make a business out of it.
ReplyDeleteThere would be no fashion industry if designers didn't knock off each other. Allan Schwartz has made an entire career of knocking off designer dresses...he is famous for doing it after the award shows! And how about Princess Diana's wedding dress - not only was that copied by RTW companies but the pattern companies copied it too.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the cornerstone of the retail industry! Now I do have a problem with someone purchasing a dress, taking it apart to make the pattern pieces, sewing it back together and returning it to the store. You have altered the merchandise.
As for featuring the pattern covers on our blogs, I don't believe one pattern company would have a problem with that because of all the free advertising we are doing for them.
Finally when homesewers knock off a designer garment from a picture there are so many things in our garments that aren't like the original - starting with the fabrics we use and moving on from there.
Intellectual property is a hard thing to defend because two people clearly can think of the same design, idea or issue at the same time. It's just who markets it better or faster!
I think it's important to change some aspect of the original design. I teach art and I tell my students all the time that it is okay to "piggy back" off someone's idea as long as you make it your own. I think when you are sewing for yourself, and copying another design, this happens naturally. You make things to fit you better, you know what sorts of things look good on you and what doesn't. I see no harm in getting inspired from someone's work and "copying" it short of cutting it up and tracing the pieces and returning it.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with this issue while getting married - I made a cake topper based on some very popular (at the time) birds sold by a Brooklyn artist for a few hundred dollars a pair. I felt guilty, but the deciding factor for me was that we wanted the birds to be made by ME with fabrics we choose.
ReplyDeleteI work at a small sewing shop that sells indie patterns (like Colette) and higher end fabrics. I get that those patterns should (rightly) be reserved for personal use, not making and selling on Etsy. I have a harder time feeling the same about the big 4 pattern companies - as most of their designs seem to already be copied from somewhere else! TOTALLY slippery ethics, I know...
For me it's all about making sure that I'm properly compensating the designer for what I'm getting. Taking inspiration from a designer? Totally. I view my Anthro catalogs as more of a pattern catalog than a shopping catalog :-)I'll even go to the store and snoop around things I like - When you get into the realm of taking someone else's design and profiting from it, then that's a whole different animal.
And I'm with everyone else who finds copyrighting fashion designs bizarre!
I don't feel guilty copying garments, though I don't do it very often. I do it for myself only, and my method is non-invasive (studying pictures from the internet/catalogs).
ReplyDeleteI am a tall, curvy girl in a size 16. As it stands, I will never be a Dior or Valentino client. And the pieces I make, I do not attempt to pass off as a certain designer's. So I don't feel that I'm impacting their profit or integrity.
I personally see no moral transgression in drafting a pattern for yourself using details from a garment which you cannot afford to buy (or that is not made in your size). The designer has lost no income from your actions, and you have to do the drafting work yourself, anyway. The idea of buying and returning a garment for tracing purposes feels more uncomfortable to me. Although I must admit to finding it hard to imagine finding anything that fits so well off-the-rack that that would even be worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I have done, with no qualms whatsoever, is trace off a pattern from my favorite (5+ year old) knit shirt that I wanted to have in a wider range of colors. I also feel free to use shirts I have purchased as a basis for cutting out simple patterns (e.g. "This mock turtleneck is a pretty good fit but I want the shoulders 1/2" narrower, sleeves a bit longer, wider neckline, etc.").
I agree with you, Gertie, I don't see the harm in copying a garment as long as it is for yourself and you don't intend to sell it or mass produce it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as copy writing goes, I believe a new product must be 15% different from another. I figure if you see a dress (or another garment) you like and reproduce it for yourself, you're going to do things differently and tweek it to fit your figure, so it's going to end up being different. So even if we were copy writing fashions, I'd say it's a go.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think I'd buy a dress, take it apart, copy it, sew it back together and return it. But personally, I don't see a problem with deconstructing garments to see how they got put together, as long as you plan on keeping them.
I'll agree with most of the commentators, in any way buying the dress with the intention to copy it and return would make my moral compass turn to "Theft". I also wouldn't take pictures in the store (but ok through a window... hmm?) or bring a tapemeasure and notebook with me to the dressing room.
ReplyDeleteBasically, as long as I'm creating a new pattern based on a visual memory or a picture on the internet, I see no problem with being inspired by details in other people's design.
On a similar note: Sewing patterns. Using a home sewing pattern to make clothes for sale is of course wrong (it even says so on the patterns, I believe). The sewing directions and the layout-scheduale are also copyrighted. But how about tracing a pattern a friend owns? I always trace my patterns, and of course one can use the same pattern many times. But is it ok to borrow a pattern from someone to trace it?
And if that's ok, then can one trace a pattern and make a gift of it to someone? If the layout and the instructions are not included? I'm a bit hesitant, and would love to hear what you Gertie, and of course your readers think about this.
Thankful for any input on this question!
I honestly only think it's sticky when you're selling the knocked off design at a profit. However, I'll admit, I worked in design, and in many companies, they'll buy off the rack, bring it in, and rip it off. People have always done it and will always continue to steal designs. The big designers steal from indigenous cultures and from kids' street style, smaller designers steal from the big guys. It's a never ending cycle and seriously nothing to get worked up over. You know, they talked about this on TED. Do a search for "Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture." I think her explanation beats the pants off of mine. And she has slides!
ReplyDeleteBuying a dress, taking it apart to make pattern pieces and returning it -- wrong.
ReplyDeleteFinding inspiration and getting design ideas from other garments has always been done, and there are really no new ideas anyway. They keep recycling. I can't believe that they can truly claim them as their own and try to copyright them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I'm late to the party, but I wanted to direct folks' attention to an excellent TED talk about this very issue: http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/
ReplyDeleteI don't know why ANY home sewer would worry about this! I think it's part of the larger cultural problem, e.g., we are being brainwashed by large media companies to forget about the rights we have to make use of copyrighted works.
Fashion thrives on copying.
This is great timing for me, as I'm actually in an intellectual property class right now. To what extent you can copy things is certainly debatable morally, but designers and pattern companies try to defend things that are not legally defensible under our current laws.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, clothing cannot actually be copyrighted, even in the US where our copyright laws are out of control. I think there's a lot of confusion about this because fabric prints are copyrighted, and when someone sues Forever21, that's what it's over.
Patterns can be copyrighted, and are, but that's only the actual paper expression of the pattern, not the idea of the garment, and even that is kind of iffy. All the restrictions on what they say you can do with the finished garments are licensing agreements, and are basically just put on there to scare people, without being at all legally enforceable. That woman with the civil war patterns is just making things up. All of that sounds like it has no basis in law, and all the close legal precedent (none of which relates to sewing, because there have been no law suits related to sewing) says that sort of thing is not enforceable.
Using a pattern image on your blog is definitely fair use, because you're only featuring a small part of the whole pattern, it's explicitly for review or criticism, and you're not reselling any part of it.
I'm not a lawyer, and I welcome corrections on any of this, if you know of laws or legal precedents. I just get irritated when I see us being pushed around by dumb threats by these companies.
I think buying a dress to take it apart, copy it, and reassemble it is wrong, not because I have some high standards regarding intellectual property....but because I would be pissed as hell if I spent $400 on a dress that someone else had taken apart and put back together.
ReplyDeleteAs for copyright...I, admittedly, know nothing about it, but I know enough to know that this "15% rule" (or 10%, as I've often heard) is utterly ridiculous. There is no legal basis to that; it's something that someone made up to make themselves feel better. What would be the basis of determining the percentage of change? Who would be the final arbitrar of that? Let's use a little common sense before we start spouting off these "rules."
Ha ha I just got a laugh. Robin's Egg Bleu, no offense intended, you do know of a serious sewist who cuts into her patterns- you are writing a comment on her blog!I remember the post ("Don't rat me out to the vintage police").
ReplyDeleteI agree with one of your first commenters, Elizabeth. I know I have seen vintage styles very similar to that galaxy dress along the way. I don't see how one can claim ownership of a design like that, but what do I know?
I've taken evening classes at FIT, and they tell you to go to stores and study designs, see what's current, practice your skills of reverse engineering, etc.
ReplyDeleteA couple of times I've seen things in stores that I've loved or thought were great ideas but needed better execution. They probably wouldn't have fit well, either. I was sorely tempted to take the garments back into the dressing room to take photos with my cellphone. But I couldn't bring myself to do it. Instead, I tried to rely on memory. The details have been lost. I guess I could try to make a sketch right afterwards, but my drawing skills stink.
I'm not saying that I'd never take a photo of something, but I'd make sure I was spending some serious cash at the store at the same time.
It's similar to my relationship (it is a "relationship") with Barnes and Noble. I love to browse all the new books, and I do ultimately buy many things from Amazon because it's cheaper, but I do usually try to buy something from the B and N at the end of my visit. Barnes and Noble had to close a major branch opposite Lincoln Center because business wasn't great.
I think dress designs are especially tricky because so few of them are unique (in the truest, absolute sense). That Nanette Lepore dress, specifically, might be her original design but it's clearly not *entirely* her idea: How many 1950's cocktail dresses look very similar? It's not as though she came up with something that didn't look like anything any of us had ever seen before. So, while lots of people copied it, she at least semi-copied it from somebody else further up the food chain: To what extent could she have copyrighted it in the first place? Do we even know who originated that form of dress, or is it a tradition, now? Public domain?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the McCall's jacket is pretty egregious, though.
Personally, I would be absolutely against buying the dress with the express intention of returning it after I'd copied it. I think that's a tiny form of theft, at the very least from the retailer (especially if you disassemble and then re-sew the garment--I would consider that "used" and no longer returnable in any ethical sense).
I think that if it's for personal use, it's fine. In fact, more power to you!
ReplyDeleteI've copied some stuff for personal use, and I don't feel even a little bit bad about it.
I don't have time to look it up, but I'm reasonably certain that no current or proposed copyright law would reach a home sewer making one garment for herself or himself with no commercial intent. Among many other issues, it would be difficult to enforce.
ReplyDeleteIt raises interesting questions about the nature of a design. I could use various aspects of the Galaxy Dress (I wouldn't, not my taste), but by the time I got done altering it to suit my body, it would not look like the same dress because I'm not 5'11" and 115 pounds, or whatever models weigh these days.
But then, that's exactly how couture firms operate: they take a design and alter it to the client. It's still considered to be the same design.
I can't decide whether designers deserve some protection from other designers. Although it's true that everything's been done, it still takes time and effort and is a risk to present the latest new-old thing. Some revived trends fall flat on their faces. But if it's a success, then everyone wants to piggyback on it. There's a free rider effect.
DO NOT buy the dress and take it apart to copy it!!!That is a serious violation to everyone - I know someone who does it all the time - the thought of purchasing a garment that someone has ripped apart and reassembled makes me CRAZY! Criminal! There are so many ways to copy the dress without this!If you really want the dress shape I think you are better off drafting the pattern to your figure -
ReplyDeleteor break down and buy the dress - can you find it at another store so you can have a perfect one?
On a different note, knocking off dresses is nothing new. When fashion magazines started in the 19th century, one of their implied purposes was for women to look through the latest designs from The House of Worth or any Parisian fashion house, then proceed to take the image and detailed description to their seamstress to have it made or to make it themselves. The earliest Vogues went into excruciating detail the colors and types of fabrics, laces, ribbons and construction details of couture gowns of the wealthy, so that the handy middle class seamstress could replicate it, if she so desired. If you look at dressmaking guides from the Victorian and Edwardian eras, one of the major suggestions offered to the home seamstress is that she have one dress, waist (blouse) and skirt custom made with the most exact fit, and then to use them as the base patterns for her entire wardrobe. With this in mind, I think its well impossible to keep any clothing design exclusive (unless you want to re-instate sumptuary laws, which didn't work out in the first place)
ReplyDeleteI second Dawn's link to the TED talk(http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/)--I encourage you all to watch it. It is a fascinating look at this very issue, and it made me realize that I do not need to worry about copying, but rather that I should embrace it!
ReplyDeleteI purchase and copy clothes a lot these days. I have no problem paying full price for the original garment and then tracing it out. I wouldn't EVER buy/return it, tho. That's just dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI think it's completely fine to "knock-off" (if you can even call it that) a designer dress for your own use. I have a folder full of dresses I want to try to sew myself that I've seen online and in catalogs! The only thing would be making money off of a complete copy, so if you were to sell the copy that wouldn't be nice, but otherwise who's to say you're not allowed to cover your body in that way unless you bought it from some designer?
ReplyDeleteAs for copyrights, I don't think that will ever go through. Where do you draw the line at how similar something is? A little tweak and it won't be the same garment, and you honestly can't say definitively that someone didn't come up with the idea on their own. As a poster above said, there are but so many ways to cover a body!
I personally have no qualms about reproducing the designs of others for personal use. What I don't care for is the reproduction of the work of others for profit.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of clothing and copyright: Zero History by William Gibson is a great book.
Chanel herself said there can be no fashion without copying. Although I wouldn't buy something and then return it. Pics are good enough for me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those who've said basically that fashion is really all about copying designs. That's what makes a trend. However, that's not at all the same as taking an actual garment and tracing it for the pattern. Using design elements to create something new is what keeps the fashion world moving.
ReplyDeleteIf you see a design and then through all the effort to come up with your own version of it, I would hardly consider that stealing. I'm not talking about taking a dress apart, using it as a pattern and then putting it back together to return it. That doesn't take much creativity and imagination. If you have the ability to see something and then recreate it, I feel that you have every right to do it for personal use.
ReplyDeleteif you are not representing your garment as an actual "fill in the designer," not inappropriately affixing labels, creating confusion as to the sourcing of the goods (which would dilute the value the product the design house produces), you should be fine. Purchasing a dress, dissembling it for the pattern and resewing the dress may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical. Because the product that you return to the store is made on a different machine, with different thread, different tension. You have altered the quality of the garment. Many, many of us use designer garments and patterns for our inspiration...and that's terrific. I do it too. But you also can't offer the garment commercially. You shouldn't offer the garment commercially as a knock-off either, because you're going to get a letter from the designer/intellectual property's owner about infringement if they discover the design in, say, a store, or multiple auctions on perhaps Ebay. Best for the rest of us home sewers? Seam on!
ReplyDeleteSomeone seriously suggested taking a dress apart to copy, and then reassembling and returning? Wow. That's way over the line for me. Once you take it apart you shouldn't return it. (Reminds me of all the "you break it you buy it" signs in china/figurine areas of shops).
ReplyDeleteI've got no problem with replicating something you own for personal use, or photos in the dressing room. Heck, I once even asked a woman at a restaurant if I could take a photo of the back of her shirt because I thought the adjustment was so unique (instead of lacing it was two columns of buttons)... she let me, but then told me she'd bought it at the mall, LOL.
What Seersucker Sally said about art is very interesting, and I think it gives a good perspective on the issue. Last month, I went to an exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Art on copies and forgeries. One of the things that they did was clearly delineate the difference forgeries, copies, and works "in the style of". The latter two are ok, and have their own value, just considerably less value than the works of known masters, but forgeries are crimes. To take it to a personal example, my parents own several portraits of our ancestors. These portraits have value of their own because of their age and quality, but they are actually copies of the originals given to the family when the originals were put in the National Gallery of Art in DC. I think it is pretty clear that it is not wrong for us to have these copies.
ReplyDeleteI am not a lawyer, and Sarah surely has much more knowledge on this front than I do (and I appreciate her nots on fair use), but my understanding is that copyright law does allow people to create copies for personal use. Copies for commercial use are different. Also, ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the execution of those ideas. This is why furniture, recipes and game instructions cannot be copyrighted either. That is to say that the wording can be copyrighted, but you can't copyright the idea of sautéing spinach in olive oil. Therefor, I think that copying the idea of a knee-length knit dress with a draped detail at the hip and a scoop neck is not only ok but also legal, especially when it is just for your own use.
There are also a few more points I would like to address. Copyright life continues to be extended legally -- laregly to protect the copyright on Micky Mouse. (That is, if you didn't know, copyright used to apply for a much smaller number of years, and they keep changing the dates.) Things that once would have fallen into public domain by now are not yet in public domain. If dresses were copyrightable, and if patterns are copyrighted, then these items created in the 40's and 50's would still be copyright protected. I doubt that anyone here would feel pangs about copying a dress of that era.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if patterns are copyrighted, what is the legal and moral status of making a dress and then selling or even giving away the pattern? If the pattern's creator gets no revenue from a second person buying the pattern, is it wrong? If the revenue that the pattern maker gets is the issue at hand, then does it make a difference if you have used the pattern? Remember, things from the 40's and 50's are still copyright protected, which would mean that any vintage pattern buying would fall in this category. I am certain that the law covers this issue, or there wouldn't be so many used books for sale, but thinking about it does have an impact on the issue as a whole. Personally, I choose to buy patterns like Collettes because I want to support their continued existence, but I'm not sure if it would be a moral or legal issue to borrow it instead, or to resell it. Somehow, I feel much less restraint on that front with major pattern companies or vintage patterns, although they have the same legal standing.
Next is the issue of how popular it is to create copies in the fashion world. Personally, I do not think the fact that a thing is common practice is sufficient to claim that it is good practice -- let's take Chinese foot binding as an example. Still, I do think that emulation is an important part of the fashion world, and it is what gives most of the value to those designer dresses. Trends add value to the work and enable the very existence of the trend setters. Without accessible versions of their work in production, they would not be able to have the status to make the money they do. Therefor, to imitate their work is not steal from them, but in fact to support their reputation, and therefor their bottom line.
Finally, to buy a dress, take it home, rip it apart and put it back together, then return it to the store is to steal from the store, in my opinion, even if it is in better repair when you return it, and even if you didn't copy it. The store is for purchase, not rental. Similarly, copying should be of the idea, not the exact fabric pieces. If you want to take pictures in the dressing room, it is not different to my mind than cutting pictures from a catalog.
I'm an academic (as you once were) and as you know, there's no such thing as an original argument. This person is just rehashing David Hume, and Hume is just rehashing one of the Greeks, who was probably just one of the dudes in his intellectual circle who wrote down the key ideas being discussed in debates. We should attribute our ideas to those who inspire them. But you are not copying or stealing, even if the law claims otherwise, if you take someone else's idea for clothing and reproduce it, because you are still putting your own interpretation on the shape, design, and you are using different cloth, different conditions. I don't even believe that designers can (or would really benefit) from strong copyright protections on their designs, because they're not "original" either. This one takes from Japanese street style, this one borrows from the Weimar Republic, this designer is inspired by the Restoration English court- these "original" styles all have origins in earlier fashion permutations. I find it difficult to believe that claims of originality can be sustained.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what you did what more than appropriate. Given how ridiculously overprice Anthropologie is (not to mention their poor labor practices and annoying habits of contributing to Republican party candidates), plus the fact that Anthro does "rip off" higher end designers, they can not claim a moral or ethical high ground. Unlike you, as you were forthright and transparent about your inspirations.
(I should note that many in my academic field reject intellectual property rights claims that foreclose ideas of sharing).
I'm with Elizabeth. There's only so many ways to cover a body. BEsides, how does one know if their "idea" is truly original...or if it wasn't something they saw years ago that stuck in their brain before coming out as a "new design"? I copy other designs all the time and don't feel guilty. The stores are the ones that should feel shameful when they charge $348 for a poorly made garment!
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in fashion school, I learned that a lot of companies simply go into a store, buy a bunch of garnments, copy them and return the clothes to get reimbursed.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't feel bad doing it but I would certainly not take the garnment apart since it's too much work, there are much easier ways to copy a pattern!
I don't think copyright can ever exist in the garnment industry, it's an eternal circle and just about everything and anything has already been made by someone else!
Intellectual evolution depends on the inspiration and progress of those who came before us.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the Galaxy inspired Vogue pattern is hardly a direct knock off. Different fabric, different fit = different dress. Yes, they have similar style lines but this is hardly a copy.
I would NEVER destroy a garment and then try to return it.
I've seen interviews with designers, where many say they got their inspiration from different sources. So if they can look at fashion from a late era, abstract concepts, or even street fashion to design their collections... why can't I? In essence, I'm doing the same thing. I'm taking inspiration from somewhere (them, street fashion, vintage, whatever) and creating a piece with of my own with my personal touch. And since I'm a home sewer, the piece is strictly for my use, so no harm done.
ReplyDeleteNow as far as taking a garment home to copy and sew back together...no. It had never occurred to me that people would go to such lengths to copy a garment. In my mind, if you bought it, it's yours to wear and keep, not to "borrow" and return.
If you however, bought the dress, and like it so much you want various versions, then take it apart, it's yours to do what you want. I guess those that take it apart and return it can use this very same argument, it's theirs to do what they please while they own it. But it all boils down to intent. If they bought it with the intent to return it, then it's stealing. If you bought it and love it and want more than one (but you're keeping it), there's no harm done.
If I'm at the store I simply study the piece and commit the details that stand out to me to memory. I have yet to take pictures in the dressing room because I'm a wimp and afraid of getting caught. :)
Alice.
Got me thinking of this post, which is totally ridiculous. http://freelancersfashion.blogspot.com/2010/11/ridicule-around-rita.html
ReplyDeleteCopying for yourself - Go ahead! copying for masses - njae not really, depends on who your copying. Copying a small designer for the bigger masses, no way José.
Thanks for a great blog! //Caroline http://ohmahgad.blogspot.com/
I think it is very hard to identify the original aspects of a garment. The dress you are interested in isn't particularly unique. I am ok about copying as long as you are not selling the designs. But personally, I don't want an exact replica of a retail item. I want to be original hence I sew. I've even reached the point of changing and playing with patterns because I don't want to wear the same garments as other sewers!
ReplyDeleteI have not yet read all of the comments but I would like to give some input that might be helpful.
ReplyDeleteIn the arena of costuming. If you have a licensed character, say Batman, or Superman, or whatever, and you are going to make or sell that character's costume you MUST work out a licensing agreement with the people who have that trademark. However, if you are making purely for yourself and have no intention of making any money off of it, there is nothing they can do.
Even if they pass the intellectual property laws on fashion design this will still apply. It will make it harder for for pattern companies to help the home sewists in their quest, though. There will be an XYZ amount of difference required(or they have to wait three years). The main hang up in the legislation is "who decides what is a copy and what is just 'inspired by'". It may not pass because most judges don't really want to be bothered with such things. Just my $.02.
Most of the IP litigation involving designer knock-offs fall into two categories: 1. Passing off a fake item as real (all those "Gucci" bags you see sold on the corner) and 2. Copying a design and selling it for your own profit (all of the litigation aimed at Forever 21 falls mainly into this category.)
ReplyDeleteA home seamstress seeing a dress and then running home to whip up her own is not looking to make a profit from the work of the original company who originally made and marketed the garment. And, it is rare when someone makes a dress and someone asks "Is that Gucci?" or whatever designer on which the original was based. Instead, its just a fabulous well-fitted garment.
But, like you stated with your other readers, I do have some strong opinions about buying garments just to copy and return, but I'll leave those for another time.
Designers are often influenced by other designers...I see nothing wrong with a home designer being influenced and inspired the same way.
Uh, I challenge anyone to get away with buying a dress, ripping it apart, sewing it back up and returning it. That is so much more work than it is worth. When I try on an expensive dress that is to-die-for, I think its worth it to just buy it. The times I haven't, I still think damn, I shoulda just bought that!
ReplyDeleteAs a home sewer the biggest reason I started sewing was because I couldn't afford, nor justify paying their prices, so for me sewing is a way to get the look myself at a fraction of the price.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that I never copy something to the point where it is identical, there are always changes made to suit me but I dont have a problem basing my idea off something I have seen in a store.
Isn't that what fashion is all about seeing something and being inspired by it and re-interpreting it for yourself? I do however agree that using commercial patterns for mass making and selling of garments is overstepping the mark If you want to sell your own garments draft your own patterns, then it really is yours.
Provided you're not trying to make money off of it yourself, I have no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteI certainly can't afford/stomach a $348 price tag, and even if I could, I choose to sew for myself because I get a better fit in colors that are way more suited to my personality that designer clothes ever could be.
Designers simultaneously knockoff and inspire each other. Can we as home sewists not be inspired by them?
I third the TED talk on fashion. Dawn and JillyB beat me to posting it!
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/
Quoted from the website:
Copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion’s free culture.
In doing more research, this is the section of U.S. copyright code that specifically stipulates that you cannot copyright a design in an image, only the image itself:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html
A garment can't be copyrighted in the first place, so legally, that's no hindrance to copying it.
In response to Erika, about tracing/borrowing patterns: I'm looking into it more, because this sparked a paper idea, but it is not entirely certain -to me- from looking at copyright code and case history that patterns themselves are copyrightable. According to the pattern companies, you can't do any of the things you mentioned, but using their logic, you also can't make more than one of anything for personal use. That's tantamount to suggesting you can only cook each thing once after you buy a cookbook, and seems completely unenforceable.
All the copyrights Simplicity has registered, for instance, are for pattern books, pattern packaging, or things like heat transfers. The closest court opinion I've been able to find is from 1879, though, -where the supreme court ruled that a pattern was not covered by copyright- so I don't know how relevant that would be considered today. In everything I'm seeing, this is very much a topic for debate and not obviously one way or the other as the pattern companies (or fabric designers) would have you believe.
With regard to instructions, methods in general are considered statements of fact, and thus not copyrightable. The exact wording, in something very detailed, can be copyrighted, however.
Also, thanks Gaidig, though I should mention that I am not a lawyer or law student either, and nothing I say should be considered legal advice. I'm a librarian, and IP and copyright are important to us, too.
I think what you talk about, selling patterns on after they have been used, should be covered under First Sale Doctrine, which is basically what allows used bookstores to be in business: you have the right to sell your copy on, but not reproduce and redistribute it.
I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but I ran across this article quite some time ago when this issue cropped up elsewhere.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns.shtml
Essentially, clothing is considered a utility item and as such, can NOT be copyrighted. However, the instructions and pattern envelope illustrations CAN.
As one commenter said, there are only so many ways to cover the human body.
Personally, I like to take the general shape of a pattern and then throw the pattern layout and sewing instructions aside. I have my own way of creating. And by using the basic shapes, there's no copyright infringement - per the website listed above.
I take issue with certain online stores who directly copy the pattern, envelope AND instructions and resell them in mass. Especially when the original copyright holder is still around. That just seems wrong. But to retrace the shapes, create new cover art and new sewing instructions? No sweat.
Go forth and knock off!
I wouldn't buy,copy and return a dress....way too much driving!I made a small pencil drawing of a Guess knit top I liked while my DD was trying clothes.The clerk asked what I was doing and I told her and explained why.She didn't seem to mind; she even said she wished she could sew!Perhaps her manager may have felt differently.
ReplyDeleteI found this site while searching for something else: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/site_index.shtml
I'm still confused by the issue of sewing and IP!
I remember reading last year that certain designers, Diane von Furstenberg being a chief proponent, were lobbying for legislation that would protect designs. I believe the effort failed, but I haven't kept up with it. I know some designers thought it was a terrible idea, esp. for small designers who couldn't afford to keep an IP lawyer on retainer.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be remembered that we aren't living in the 19th Century anymore, where someone might copy a Worth dress and there would be no confusion. (Assuming the person could get in the door at Worth in the first place. Otherwise, the copier was probably using some secondhand sketch to begin with.)
With the web, it takes much less effort to gain access to the designs of others. Photos of entire collections can be transmitted to the whole world in a few seconds. People can download the images and they have an instant design library. In the past, there were always knock-off firms, but the original designers had a few months of lead time in which they could enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I don't know the answer, but this is a more complicated matter as between design firms.
One thing I do all the time is use a program called Evernote, which allows me to save images. Whenever I see an interesting garment, I save it to an Evernote notebook.
ReplyDeleteBeing an artist and designer and clothes horse and seamstress, I feel that a copy is ok for personal use--once they are mass produced or make more money than I have from it--trouble. Paula
ReplyDeleteI would think that tracing a copy of a pattern and giving it to a friend falls into the same category as sharing a music mp3---and that seems to be established as illegal, if difficult to enforce.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
ReplyDeleteJohanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
On my moral compass, it is not OK to take the dress apart to rub it off and then return it, but it would be OK to buy it to take it apart and grab the pattern. I just don't know why you'd want to.
It is so much more difficult to operate a fashion business than it is to draft a pattern. Coming up with the idea and patterning it is not the hard part.
Daiyami: It's not actually established in law that patterns are copyrightable the same way that music fixed in the form of an .mp3 is. They're not considered original or creative in the same way that music is. Methods and "useful articles" aren't covered under copyright, and patterns fall into those categories.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, in one case I found --Beverly Hills Design Studio v. Morris (1990)-- the judge decided that one company couldn't sue the other for copying their patterns since apparel patterns are not copyrightable:
"It was clear almost from the beginning that the problem with copyrightability was that the apparel patterns were functional products: they were used to cut fabric for the garments, or to create templates for cutting multiple layers of fabric. Such a useful article is not eligible for copyright protection unless it has artistic features which are independent of its utilitarian aspects, and here there were none."
Did y'all see that episode of I Love Lucy when Lucy and Ethel were in Paris? Ricky and Fred thought the ladies were crazy for wanting to buy those expensive designer dresses, so they got them dresses made of burlap sacks.
ReplyDeleteLucy and Ethel wore them and everyone stared. They ended up feeling foolish and destroying the clothes, but the next day, everyone was wearing burlap.
If it's stratospherically out of my price range, I don't even think about it. I mean, I'm *never* going to buy a $500 dress. That being said, there are some designs that I'd never copy, these mostly being the people I've bought lovely clothes from off of handmade markets like etsy (missbrache, heirapparel among them; lovely work!). If you said you were going to copy the pattern and sell it, that would be questionable, but for your own use? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
ReplyDeleteThere's a proposed law to protect clothing designs, introduced by Sen Schumer in August 2010. Home sewers are exempted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/288024-print.html
I think there is a big difference between taking inspiration from a shape or detail and downright copying. I guess there is no true harm in a home sewist doing this for personal use -- but as independent artists we also need to remember that rules that protect big name designers are the same rules that protect much smaller independent designers.
ReplyDeleteYou can't pick and choose when to follow copyright laws based on the profit margin of the creator.
My fiance is an independent textile designer - one of his designs was blatantly ripped off by a large chain. It was heartbreakingly frustrating to see this huge chain profit off of his creativity.
Luckily my brother is an attorney and was able to financially settle the case, but most designers aren't lucky enough to have a lawyer in the family and wouldn't be able to afford the expense of hiring one for ended up taking hours and hours of attorney work.
I guess what I am saying is that stealing is stealing - it isn't right to get up in arms about stealing from the little guys if you have no problem with stealing from the big chains.
Here is one example that is blatant and I think wrong....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b220109_did_rachel_zoe_steal_designs_her.html?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-fashion&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_fashion
Even if it was from a dress with no labeled designer- its an exact copy that she will be selling for a ton of money.
Making a pattern/item from an existing garment I think is alright as long as you aren't going out and claiming that it is your original design.
It's 6am here, I have my tea and my cigarette, and I must say - I simply enjoy reading your posts in the morning. So inspiring for the rest of the day :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I share your opinion through and through. As you said, a home seamstress will look for inspiration and maybe challenge, which is - or rather- must be accomplished with re-producing or copying in that matter. But when I say "copy" I actually mean taking a picture as reference, and trying the rest myself. I wouldn't rip the dress, because imho this would destroy something like ...uh.. an invisible barrier. If I buy a jacket, I buy it for a reason, and that's: wearing it. If it inspires me to try the same, I draft a pattern and try to position the seam lines, darts and whatsoever on the same spots, and make a muslin for example.
If you rip a dress, to trace the pattern from it, you somehow "steal" the pattern. It's similar to sourcecode (sorry, that's the only thing which comes to my mind right now) If you like a page design, you can try it yourself. You can NOT copy the sourcecode, which might be someone elses work. But you can TRY to get the same idea. After all, fashion is there to inspire...right?
But.. what does inspiration mean? It means, I like the idea, of something in particular, how it's made, maybe a detail reminds me of something I like, or something I've seen. And then I challenge myself to try it too, because either I want to know, how it's done, or because I simply want to have it badly. If we would start on the topic, how badly copying is, should we not start with burdastyle-online, for example? There are people, who have done an amazing sewing-job and have inspired me. But didn't they post the picture for exactly that?
And whats with the historic aspect? Many clothes today have an abstract idea of a garment already made a long time ago.
Fashion is a machine which runs itself, it inspires, it copies, it combines, it develops.
It's 6am here, I have my tea and my cigarette, and I must say - I simply enjoy reading your posts in the morning. So inspiring for the rest of the day :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I share your opinion through and through. As you said, a home seamstress will look for inspiration and maybe challenge, which is - or rather- must be accomplished with re-producing or copying in that matter. But when I say "copy" I actually mean taking a picture as reference, and trying the rest myself. I wouldn't rip the dress, because imho this would destroy something like ...uh.. an invisible barrier. If I buy a jacket, I buy it for a reason, and that's: wearing it. If it inspires me to try the same, I draft a pattern and try to position the seam lines, darts and whatsoever on the same spots, and make a muslin for example.
If you rip a dress, to trace the pattern from it, you somehow "steal" the pattern. It's similar to sourcecode (sorry, that's the only thing which comes to my mind right now) If you like a page design, you can try it yourself. You can NOT copy the sourcecode, which might be someone elses work. But you can TRY to get the same idea. After all, fashion is there to inspire...right?
But.. what does inspiration mean? It means, I like the idea, of something in particular, how it's made, maybe a detail reminds me of something I like, or something I've seen. And then I challenge myself to try it too, because either I want to know, how it's done, or because I simply want to have it badly. If we would start on the topic, how badly copying is, should we not start with burdastyle-online, for example? There are people, who have done an amazing sewing-job and have inspired me. But didn't they post the picture for exactly that?
And whats with the historic aspect? Many clothes today have an abstract idea of a garment already made a long time ago.
Fashion is a machine which runs itself, it inspires, it copies, it combines, it develops.
It's 6am here, I have my tea and my cigarette, and I must say - I simply enjoy reading your posts in the morning. So inspiring for the rest of the day :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I share your opinion through and through. As you said, a home seamstress will look for inspiration and maybe challenge, which is - or rather- must be accomplished with re-producing or copying in that matter. But when I say "copy" I actually mean taking a picture as reference, and trying the rest myself. I wouldn't rip the dress, because imho this would destroy something like ...uh.. an invisible barrier. If I buy a jacket, I buy it for a reason, and that's: wearing it. If it inspires me to try the same, I draft a pattern and try to position the seam lines, darts and whatsoever on the same spots, and make a muslin for example.
If you rip a dress, to trace the pattern from it, you somehow "steal" the pattern. It's similar to sourcecode (sorry, that's the only thing which comes to my mind right now) If you like a page design, you can try it yourself. You can NOT copy the sourcecode, which might be someone elses work. But you can TRY to get the same idea. After all, fashion is there to inspire...right?
.
.
.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
But.. what does inspiration mean? It means, I like the idea, of something in particular, how it's made, maybe a detail reminds me of something I like, or something I've seen. And then I challenge myself to try it too, because either I want to know, how it's done, or because I simply want to have it badly. If we would start on the topic, how badly copying is, should we not start with burdastyle-online, for example? There are people, who have done an amazing sewing-job and have inspired me. But didn't they post the picture for exactly that?
And whats with the historic aspect? Many clothes today have an abstract idea of a garment already made a long time ago.
Fashion is a machine which runs itself, it inspires, it copies, it combines, it develops.
@copyright:
ReplyDeleteIf there would be a copyright, it would provide more fuss, than order.
Everything(!), really, nearly everything has been made so far.
Where would you put a copyright design for a -simple and puristic- sheath dress? It's an issue, such laws are not executed yet particularly because of this reason.
@comparison with music laws
music is somehow "measurable"
There are so far less possibilities to copy a song completely, than to copy a dress, because in the mathematic sense there are more parameters to cope.
But, if the idea of an old song gets through a new one, there are made charges, afaik.
I think it's a matter of inspiration vs copying. There are differences, for sure. Taking apart a dress, getting the pattern, and returning the dress is so horribly disrespectful. I have a husband whose livelihood depends on people respecting copyright, and that suggestion is truly atrocious!
ReplyDeleteUsing old clothing, not being sold anymore, and getting a pattern for reproduction happens all the time - I am fine with that, as long as the original company is out of business, or not selling anymore.
Taking change room photos is a little ify to me. Taking mannequin photos, or store photos is fine. You still need to draft the pattern yourself.
And then there is the argument that most of us reach into the same pool for inspiration, so original (not copied) ideas can occur to multiple people at the same time.
I don't think style should be copyrighted. Only the pattern itself makes sense to me to be protected. One can still arrive at a similar place by drafting their own pattern from scratch, and why not? There are only so many ways to clothe ourselves. Like recipes. You cannot copyright an ingredient list, only the instructions.
Hi Gertie! I'm not sure if someone has linked to this video already, but you might want to watch this http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html, I'm a fashion student and I had to write an essay on this topic, and that video. It's pretty interesting. :)
ReplyDeleteCheck out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
She talks about the advantages of the lack of copyright in the fashion industry. I really enjoy her take on things.
I'm all for looking at stuff and making your own take on it.
I would have to object to buying and returning for the purpose of copying though.
I take the same approach as you do. I don't buy to copy but I don't see anything wrong with using designer or vintage clothes as rather literal inspiration.
ReplyDelete'Real' designers do much worse. I once helped a small new brand with pattern making and the designer had 'made' all her blocks by buying chain store clothes and taking them apart. And there are plenty of stories of designers giving vintage pieces the same treatment...
Ehm, I meant literal inspiration for the home seamstress. Producing larger numbers and selling those would be wrong in my book.
ReplyDeleteIt's just fashion, not the cure for cancer...and while I hugely admire DVF as a designer the IP protection she is pursuing for fashion will absolutely be a case of "Be careful what you wish for."
ReplyDeleteTaking how much designers are copying the blogging community there should be no qualms for copying a dress for your own use...none what. so. ever.
ReplyDeleteIt's akin to going out to eat and remaking the recipe at home, you've gotta have skills to parse out a recipe by taste as you've have to be resourceful to copy a pattern from an already made dress. Now, copying and making to sell, that would be a whole different tangle of issues.
I think it's OK to copy designer clothing patterns directly if you're not doing it for commercial purposes. If you do the stitch-by-stitch method, its OK if you're just making a dress for yourself.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it gets to be a bit much if you plan on mass-producing the garment for profit. If you really like a design, be creative and create your own pattern based off of it. You'll feel better about yourself and your work in the end.
It's all about profit. When someone duplicates an item, sometimes the duplicator could have afforded the purchase, and sometimes not. If not, the designer has lost nothing, as the duplicator wouldn't have purchased the item in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the duplicator could afford the original, but it was ill-fitting? Personally I don't see the dilemma there; after all, half of us learned to sew for that very reason.
As long as the duplicator is not turning a profit at the expense of the designer, then there's no moral issue at all.
Anthropologie is actually notorious for copying fashions of independent designers, whether intentionally or not. I think it's important to put your own spin on the design to make it your own. Then it becomes an issue of re-appropriation rather than flagrant copying. :)
ReplyDeletePerhaps part of the difference between copying a design at home for yourself (consensus seems to say OK) with copying a design and selling it (consensus says not OK) is that in the latter case you aren't acknowledging the original designer's work, as well as taking money from customers that would have potentially gone to him/her?
ReplyDeleteLike most, I would feel no qualms about copying a design I liked just for myself, but I would definitely draw the line at doing anything that would affect the original seller, like buying the dress, taking it apart and putting it back together.
This is a very interesting post, and I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments!
ReplyDeleteIt's an age-old problem I'm sure, and Dior writes about it in his biog 'Dior', about the lengths people would go to, to copy his 'New Look'. They were incredibly devious and underhanded!
Miss P xx
I have borrowed ideas from Anthropologie's knitted items for years, but I don't sell my items or patterns. I don't copy an item outright though.
ReplyDeleteThere are hundreds or thousands of years of dressmakers and tailors preceding them so every designer's work is derivative. In fact as a customer you are not just paying for the design, you are paying for the fabric and the construction labor and shipping etc too.
ReplyDeleteNobody owns a sweetheart nackline. But if you feel you have to be stealthy about copyiing something, you are probably *feeling* that it's dishonest. You should heed your conscience.
I confess my sewing is not of a standard where there is much risk of my clothes being confused with the designer original. There arn't many new ideas in clothing or craft sewing. My personal favorite is always the blogging crafters outraged at another crafter stealing their design, invariably something bag shaped or 1970's toy shaped...he he he he. Lets just boot up our machines and have some fun- acnowledging our ideas will always be unconsiously influenced by our culture.
ReplyDeleteI found this highly interesting!
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/
And this is quite useful
http://whatthecraft.com/quickie-guide-to-copyright-law/
Totally fine, particularly if you're doing it to wear yourself. I mean, if you heard about a great book about a bunny that got made real because a boy loved it, then made up your own story along those lines to tell your kids at bedtime, would that be a problem? Or if you saw a pretty scarf and then knit a similar one? Or heard a song about a yellow submarine, and sung it in the shower?
ReplyDeletePersonally, as an artist, I think it's a compliment. It's like you've then contributed to the conversation by inspiring someone else and that's what it's all about to me. :)
The idea of patenting cloth designs is a great one considering that there are some designs that are so unique and original and that have taken the designers great a lot of time and effort to develop.
ReplyDelete--
Reverse Engineering
I love fashion show and these cloth's collection are really awesome, I love them design.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great topic! As someone who works for a major clothing manufacturer I can tell you that buying higher end garments and using them as 'inspiration' pieces is a very common practice. Most designers do it to some extent or another. Telling yourself 'everyone does it', however does not make it right.
ReplyDeleteIt is unethical and fraudulent to buy, deconstruct and then reconstruct a garment to return to a store. You are doing so to create a counterfeit garment and not an 'inspiration' of the original.
I don't really take issue with anyone buying a dress, taking it apart and copying it. My mom once had an amazingly well-fitting pair of pants, which she took to a tailor with different fabrics (winter wool, cottony-linen summery stuff, etc) so she could have the same pants for different seasons. I have a few favorite skirts that I probably should make over in a few different fabrics, if only I were a better sewer. To my mind, that's way different than buying something, using it, and returning it. Whether you wear it with the tags tucked in or you take it apart and stitch it back up, you've used it and it shouldn't be returned as 'new/unused' merchandise.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I mean general you, not specifically YOU, haha. I realize you'd never dream of returning something that had been taken apart. Who would, really?
I'm late to the party on this, but there are limits to what can be "owned" as intellectual property. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of ideas. It is perfectly legal and ethical to share recipes, for example - and even to republish them, as long as you rewrite the description and instructions in your own words. The ingredient list is no more copyrightable than the facts in a news story or a historical event. I see clothing design the same way - the features of the garment are the facts or ingredients. The drafting and assembly are the expression of the idea and you must do them for yourself.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, copying a garment from a photo, or even from trying it on in the store, is more like trying to re-create a recipe from the taste of the food.
Buying a garment and returning it to wear, or trace, is unethical because it is deceptive. You are taking the benefits of possession without paying for the benefit.
I thought you were going to give some insight on furniture and not leave us hanging to decide.
ReplyDeletePatterns aren't copyrightable just like recipes aren't copyrightable. There's only so many combinations of flavors that are palatable, only so many combinations of cuts that are practical/wearable. If they were copyrightable we'd never be able to eat or sew at home ever again. Monopolies would dominate the industry and it would be bad for business, much less the hobbyist at home.
ReplyDeleteSomeone brought up source code. Well even that is hardly copyrightable. Layout is not copyrightable; code structure is not copyrightable; programming logic is not copyrightable... even interfaces aren't copyrightable. What is copyrightable is a very small gray area. There are only so many ways to skin a cat, as they say. Having some programming experience myself, I can't entirely agree that source code should be copyrightable at all. I'm glad the courts are conservative in this area.
But back on topic.
I think doing any and all of the above is acceptable with one exception: returning an altered garment. When you pay for a product you assume that it is brand new unless marked otherwise. Refurbished items have to be marked as such, even if they've been completely checked by the manufacturer to be perfect in every respect.
Nobody wants a shoddy reconstruction when they're paying good money for a designer item. I'm not saying you're a bad seamstress, but if it's okay for you to do, then it's okay for everyone. We can't assume that everyone will do a good job, when there are no ramifications if they don't.