Copying a piece of art or music is considered, not only unethical, but illegal as it breaches terms of copyright, piracy and trademark policies. However in the fashion industry copycats are barely noticed. Why is that you may ask? Designing and constructing clothes is based off of already constructed frameworks. You cannot be persecuted for making a jumper because another designer has already made a jumper. If that were the case the term 'jumper' would not be a global term. Shirts, dresses, skirts, pants, shorts, jeans, t-shirts, jackets, jumpers, knits, socks, and under garments are often identical around the world. The stitching, the material and the colours may even be identical. The designs and patterns on the garment itself may be similar. This copying does exist but is not frowned upon in the industry as it is the reason trends exist. For this reason 'the clothing and retail business is also among the fastest growing industries in several parts of the world' (Okonkwo, 2007, p.2).
While clothes may be designed the same, look the same and feel the same, the brands will differ which cannot be copied. Brand names and logos have trademark laws connected to them so same products names cannot be displayed on clothing. This is how counterfeit items are created and distributed illegally. The following video explains how the fashion industry combats this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
The counterfeit 'trend' is typically noted in Asian countries where production is less costly. This affects both the designer, as they are not getting commission for their work and their brand is being abused with cheaper material and products lacking quality, and the consumer who is being mislead into buying a product that is not a real designer label and is not up to the quality standard of the original. 'It is estimated that up to 7 percent of our annual world trade — $600 billion worth — is counterfeit or pirated; that fakes are believed to be directly responsible for the loss of more than 750,000 American jobs' (Thomas, 2010). The tactic of exposure is used in this case to combat both designer, economic and consumer outrage. By making the public aware of rip off brands through media advertisement and supplying certificates for real designs people are able to protect themselves along with the fashion industry from being cheated.
Reference List
Johanna Blakely: Lessons from Fashion's Free Culture 2010, YouTube, Ted Talks Director, 25 May, retrieved 19 August 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0>
Okonkwo, U 2007, Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics and Techniques, Palgrave MacMillan, retrieved 19 August 2013, <http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a_6CublRtYwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=trends+definition+in+the+fashion+industry&ots=9ajjuIlnb9&sig=cwO_U-Uv4vwjFH6Z2z7Sgfi2A5w#v=onepage&q=trends%20definition%20in%20the%20fashion%20industry&f=false>
Thomas, D 2010, 'The Fight Against Fakes', Harpers Bazaar, 30 November, p.2, retrieved 19 August 2013, <http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/the-fight-againstfakes-0109_>
Tammy I think you have written a really interesting piece here about the inconsistencies that exist around copyright law. How often have you wandered into a high-end fashion boutique and admired a product only to wander into the nearest cotton on or mass produced store and found a literally identical piece? Yet this is not considered a breach of copyright merely trend-setting, it’s only when the garment contains a logo or name that this becomes an issue. The counterfeit products are also an example of Globalisation, as companies in small Asian countries are kept up to date with Western fashion, thus allowing them to create the cheaper versions.
ReplyDeleteTammy,
ReplyDeleteI like your colloquial style of writing, but think that you could have had references that were stronger in an academic sense. You tackled the concept well and followed the format as instructed, except for the fact that you didn’t define globalisation. The look of the blog was inviting, but the links could have been done more elegantly (without the URLs so obvious). You stay on track with your topic of copyright but I think you should have linked it back more explicitly to globalisation, media and other specific key terms for this week.