19.8.07

Fashion Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights

Last Autumn, when I took an Arts Law class, I was rather surprised by the wide gaps left by intellectual property rights. Prior to many provisions, copyright only covered literary, musicla, dramatic and choreographed works, graphic and sculptural works, including audio and motion picture works.

Wow! Does anyone else see how many artistic realms aren't represented in this? (Which, for the most part, is still the general list of protected works.) Luckily,the government seems to move rather quickly to adapt laws to match current trends in society, so we were bound to see laws popping up to protect piracy, the internet, and other forms of communication that make up intellectual property laws.

The Fashion-y Blog recently posted about designer knock-off, to which I replied with my typical hybrid of legal advice and devil's advocacy. Because the truth is, that fashion designers have little to protect their intellectual interests-- they cannot copyright a garment of clothing (although they could probably copyright the drawings), and there is little left for them to patent, unless they can guarantee they are the first to use a particular element (which is a problem corsetiere Alexis of Electra Designs has recently faced).

There is news that this is going to change, however. From a thread I found, quoting the Patent, Trademark, & Copyright Journal (August 10, 2007):
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), joined by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and seven co-sponsors, introduced legislation Aug. 2 that would amend Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act to extend design protection to fashion designs....
Under the Goodlatte bill, creators and designers of clothing, "including undergarments, outerwear, gloves, footwear, and headgear," as well as handbags, purses, tote bags, belts, and eyeglass frames, would receive protection for three years for their designs....Additionally, H.R. 2033 would create new subsections under Chapter 13 that would extend liability for infringement to those who copy from a design or from an image of a design. The bill would also create a new section that establishes secondary liability to all designs covered under Chapter 13. To receive protection under the bill, a design would have to be registered within three months "after the date on which the design is first made public."
Additionally, under H.R. 2033, damages for infringement would be set at $250,000 or $1 a copy. Proponents of an earlier version of the fashion design bill testifying at a House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property hearing in July 2006 said that new technologies, including the Internet, have made it significantly easier and less costly for manufacturers to bring knockoffs to the market shortly after the original design first debuts on the runway (72 PTCJ 360, 8/4/06)...."The goal of S. 1957," Hatch explained, "is to ensure that those who spend their time and money developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work."
The Source, possibly a lovely copyright ripoff in itself, along with a few more links about the bill.


I encourage you to read through the reader's responses, as there are many points made by photographers, models, and fashion designers, who bring up valid points about the implications of making such a bill. On one hand, it is good to see protection of designers who create couture/haute couture clothing, and ensuring that what is meant to be one-of-a-kind will truly stay that way. On the other hand, there are implications for the fashion photography world, such as having to secure property rights to photograph the items, or facing infringement suits. The process of gaining a copyright/trademark/patent is not a cheap or quick process, either, which means that many small designers may find their work unavailable for protection (to some degree). Will such protection stifle the fashion and garment industry? In an industry where borrowing focal pieces creates an aesthetic for the season, are designers going to be faced with paying another designer to use that element, and create the new trends? The whole process may create some interesting problems and solutions to an art form that relies on continual change and idea-exchanges.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Kathleen Fasanella said...

[please delete: Is there any way I could convince you to change either the color of your font or the background? One has to copy/paste into notepad to read your entries]

You won't find a bigger supporter of designer-entrepreneurs than me. FWIW, based on a poll I did on my site, 98% of designers are likewise opposed AND 100% don't think it will protect them. I wrote the following to the LA times in reference to their recent editorial (they are also opposed to the bill).

In reference to Fashion copyrights cut creativity, no one is mentioning the most fundamental flaw with the proposed legislation which I described at length in my entry, Fashion copyright, the death of us all (http://www.fashion-incubator.com/mt/archives/fashion_copyright_the_death_of_us_all.html). As a pattern maker in the apparel industry for over 25 years, I can tell you this law will put 90% of new designers -the innovators- out of business. And us along with them.

Due to the exposure to liability this legislation would create, sewing contractors, pattern makers and even retail buyers will require that designers prove they own their concepts. We'll need liability coverage to cover gaps in judicial design interpretation. We'll have to hire attorneys, our costs will dramatically escalate and our margins are already razor thin. Overnight, our prices will minimally double. Few new designers have the resources to cover their needs now; the proposed legislation will ensure than nearly none do. The technical componentry of the domestic apparel industry is greying. I imagine most of us will retire due to higher costs, fewer clients and more hassle, leaving even fewer production resources available (contrary to popular belief, already a critical shortage).

Costs to designers will dramatically increase in other ways. Since we won't take their work unless they can prove they own it, they'll have to run the gauntlet of design searches through databases. As it is, the average search for trademarks -of which there are innumerably fewer than clothing designs- costs thousands of dollars. Still, assuming the design is -in our professional estimation- unique, the laymen's interpretation takes precedence. If the average joe -say, one's spouse- doesn't notice you've colored your hair, it is doubtful they'll know the difference between a dolman and a batwing sleeve.

The costs to consumers will also dramatically increase. Worse, the range of styling and sizing will plummet. People have a difficult time as it is finding clothing to fit and in colors that flatter them. The only winners are the big brands; those with the resources to pursue design protection remedies. They will produce yet more sameness and everyone will pay the price.

The barrier of costs this legislation represents will stifle innovation more effectively than any other possible alternative. Sadly, we won't have to worry about protecting innovation if there isn't any.

August 21, 2007 10:52 AM

 
Blogger Ashe Mischief said...

Kathleen--
First, thank you for your feedback on the page itself! I took your suggestions, and while I'm not crazy about the color scheme, I do hope it's easier to read (while I build something better). I really appreciate it.

The statistics you've provided about the topic are fascinating! I've read many comments about this law passing, and it's interesting to see that the majority of people don't believe it will protect them (and it's interesting to see who favors it and why). Likewise, I find its affects on other industries alarming as well.

I've been reading increasing information about the pattern making industry, and how in general it's meeting many grievances, and I hate to see how it is further being affected by legislation as this (especially as a girl who can ONLY sew using a pattnern). It seems like this legislation is going to harm the industry more than it intends to, while failing to provide the right sort of protection. I believe that designers do deserve some sort of intellectual protection, although I'm not sure I've articulated what it is and how it should be covered.

August 30, 2007 2:38 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home