NYT article about knockoffs

  1. I think the designers are being hyper sensitive. These "knock off" fashions have fueled the fashion industry from the beginning of the fashion industry! Its a small percentage of the buying population that can afford Runway, designer fashions. Someone who can afford a Zac Posen $1,000 dress is not the clientale that is buying a Macys $100 knockoff. That is like Chloe complaining that Target is selling the lock bag knockoff for $19.99. What about Haute Couture? Alot of designers mirror images that grace the runways of Paris' Haute Couture fashion shows. Sounds to me like its another way for the designers to get there names in the papers. "Inspired" fashions is alot different then copyrite infringement. JMHO.

  2. These aren't even knock-offs, they're just "inspired-by!" I agree, these people are being hyper sensitive. I mean, there's going to be a certain amount of similiarities between lines because there's only so many ways to sew a trench-coat anyway!
  3. I just think its comical. The whole article. The designers stance, everything. This is fashion. There is a trickle down in fashion. I mean how about Christian Lacroix his work is very Victorian inspired.

  4. I would like if a bill was passed but i live in canada and it would not affect me.
  5. ^^^ totally agree. They have their own names as well. i.e. ABS
  6. Fashion designers "knock off" each other. The famous Balenciaga patchwork dresses were almost exact copies from an obscure designer (he actually copied the shapes for the patchwork). When it was found out and Nicolas Ghesquiere was asked about it, he nonchalantly admitted to it. That collection was still citically acclaimed and nothing happened to him.

    This is not going to be an easy law to pass. There is too much left to interpretation. Would it be whoever came up with a particular style of design first would be the "owner" of the copyright? What if a housewife in Missouri came up with that particular design back in 1950, would she have legal standing? (This is from the shirtdress or tuxedo dress examples in the article.)

    I do think when people "are inspired" or "knock off" designers, designers do get hurt by it. People are mixing high and low these days so the clientile does overlap. The designers have valid feelings of being mistreated, but they would also have to recognize their accountability in "knocking off" other designers.

    I thought the last two paragraphs were a bit much.

    "Gela Taylor, one of the designers of Juicy Couture, whose luxury sweat suits have been much knocked off, said she planned to visit Washington from Los Angeles next month to push for the bill.
    "I don't think anybody's naïve about this," Ms. Taylor said"

    I agree that Juicy Couture popularized sweat suits and pushed them into "luxury" day wear, but do they really have legal standing even if a bill is passed? They merely popularized an idea (not created a style). They were a part of pop culture, not creative fashion development.

    I, however, do agree that something should be done to give economic incentives to fuel innovation and creativity. Fashion is a business, after all.
  7. I think they're kind of overracting...
    northernbelle33 likes this.
  8. i think the money and time would be better spent to fight outright counterfeits. this is just kinda silly and petty.
  9. they are over reacting
  10. It's well known that even the most "creative" artists often get their ideas from the work of others. In fashion it is often the designs of past eras. And, as we all know, many get their inspiration from the street -- from mundane articles worn in new ways, inspiring new cuts. Low waist jeans. Wellies. Laced and fur-trimmed sheep skin boots that are basically riffs on Indian and Eskimoo boots. What is creative is not necessarily making something brand new but interpreting something in a new way. The act of re-seeing. Re-vision.
  11. They're not talking about real knock offs. I think they should put more focus on that instead.