The law of Balenciaga

[laurasjeel]

this may seem like a random and possibly stupid question, but anyway here it goes:

today I was in claire's accessories with my friend so she could buy some cheap jewelry, anyway I digress, there was a faux leather metallic silver "first" there, and I thought that even though it doesn't say or claim to be balenciaga, surely that type of moto design is copywrited or has some form of legal rights to it? I just thought claire's was a bit too much of a big name shop to be able to get away with selling "balenciaga style" handbags?

 

[simona7]

I think as long as it doesn't have the Balenciaga tag on the inside it is just considered "inspired by" which unfortunately is not illegal and there are a ton of them. It sucks but the real thing is so much better and so different.

 

[ashshopstoomuch]

Normally I really don't care about designer inspired stuff but Claires is walking a very fine line. A few months ago they had copies of those Marc Jacobs heels with the stars and the zipper across the toe, and they were exact copies. I guess normally when I see 'designer inspired' stuff in stores it's different enough that I can tell right away, not just the quality but hardware and things like that, and these shoes I would've needed to compare them side by side with the real ones to be able to tell any difference. That really bothered me and I'm hoping some desginer they're copying hits them with a copyright infringement suit.

 

[laurasjeel]

I think as long as it doesn't have the Balenciaga tag on the inside it is just considered "inspired by" which unfortunately is not illegal and there are a ton of them. It sucks but the real thing is so much better and so different.

It really does suck I hate copy cats, especially copy cats who make a cheap looking version of it!

 

[south-of-france]

Imitation and commercial use is prohibited by different laws, e.g. design/copyright/patent/brand law. Usually it's cause for private litigation and criminal prosecution as well. You could probably notify the authorities and/or Balenciaga?

 

[laurasjeel]

Normally I really don't care about designer inspired stuff but Claires is walking a very fine line. A few months ago they had copies of those Marc Jacobs heels with the stars and the zipper across the toe, and they were exact copies. I guess normally when I see 'designer inspired' stuff in stores it's different enough that I can tell right away, not just the quality but hardware and things like that, and these shoes I would've needed to compare them side by side with the real ones to be able to tell any difference. That really bothered me and I'm hoping some desginer they're copying hits them with a copyright infringement suit.

Precisely, i think they are very close to crossing the line of "inspired" into "copying" and I hope some designer does rebel against it! If plaigerism of work is wrong and worth punishing the person for then surely this should be wrong as well, seeing as they are using others designs and matching them so closely that it could on first glance or to an untrained eye look like the real thing. I just don't get how this is legal!

 

[laurasjeel]

Imitation and commercial use is prohibited by different laws, e.g. design/copyright/patent/brand law. Usually it's cause for private litigation and criminal prosecution as well. You could probably notify the authorities and/or Balenciaga?

It was the same shape, harware in the same place and everything, so it definitly was very specific imitation of the design. It's basically plagiarism, copying someone elses design and making it look like their own, and I just don't see how that could be legal! Would they do anything if I did notify them? I don't want to go into the hassle of it if I am just going to be ignored anyway

 

[ViciousBliss]

im more bothered by this than a lot of people. i view it as stolen art. it's one thing if someone gets permission to make a poster of a one of a kind piece of art, but this is sans permission and that really irks me. i suppose live and let live but i'm glad to hear i'm not the only person this REALLY FRICKIN BOTHERS.

 

[laurasjeel]

im more bothered by this than a lot of people. i view it as stolen art. it's one thing if someone gets permission to make a poster of a one of a kind piece of art, but this is sans permission and that really irks me. i suppose live and let live but i'm glad to hear i'm not the only person this REALLY FRICKIN BOTHERS.

You are definitley not the only one. It is just like theft of art, they stole a design and are trying to pass it off as their own and it sucks! I doubt balanciaga would give claire's permission to use their design.

 

[shamsi]

im more bothered by this than a lot of people. i view it as stolen art. it's one thing if someone gets permission to make a poster of a one of a kind piece of art, but this is sans permission and that really irks me. i suppose live and let live but i'm glad to hear i'm not the only person this REALLY FRICKIN BOTHERS.

I'm with you (& the previous posters). It extends past purses...intellectual property, scientific discovery, academic integrity, etc.

 

[Chi town Chanel]

A good place to report fakes is the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition. Info can be found at www.iacc.org.

 

[CleoCouture]

Unfortunately fashion isnt copyrighted so knock-offs are allowed! Just because it's allowed doesnt mean it's alright! I really hate it when I'm carring my Authentic City and someone else walks in carring a totally fake copy of my bag and says:"Hey look! We have the same bag!" I dont think so!!!!

 

[Deco]

Unfortunately fashion isnt copyrighted so knock-offs are allowed! Just because it's allowed doesnt mean it's alright! I really hate it when I'm carring my Authentic City and someone else walks in carring a totally fake copy of my bag and says:"Hey look! We have the same bag!" I dont think so!!!!

Sorry Cleo, fashion most certainly is copyrighted. There is no special act required to have copyright protection for a design other than to put an original creative work on paper or perserve it in some tangible embodiment (such as constructing the bag itself). Surprisingly enough, non-enforcement of copyrights in the fashion world appears to be an unspoken compact among industry participants. The reasons for this tacit consent/tolerance of copyright infringement are believed to be:
1. Everyone is guilty of it. Top to bottom and back up again. Everyone copies something from somewhere. Creators want to spend their time on creating and stealing/adapting/being inspired by other's creations, not suing each other in court.
2. There is an industry understanding that copying and being inspired by each other's designs, and having designs "trickle down" and get diluted each step of the way from the couture houses down to K-Mart brands over serveral months/years, actually fuels and pushes along the fashion cycle where the top designers and "innovators" benefit also. There's only so much revenue you can milk out of a top design costing thousands of dollars. It's then knocked off for the next cheaper tier, and next cheaper tier, and so on. This way an original design from the top makes it through the market at all price points, and results in fatigue over the design, fueling the desire for the next great innovative thing to be put out and consumed at all price points.

Now, trademark infringement is an entirely different animal. While copying the style/design of a Bbag may be tolerated, slapping a "BALENCIAGA" name on it is not. That's lying and attempting to deceive customers. Only the most shady industry outsiders ever engage in this conduct. Of course there are times when a copyrighted design element becomes so iconic that it begins to acquire the characteristics of a trademark, a brand in and of itself (think of Mickey Mouse, both a copyright and a trademark). But that lecture's for a different day.

Ok. I know. Way too verbose. I just love this stuff though.

 

[slinks]

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Deco - this was really informative.

 

[joey beans]

decophile are you in the legal proffession ? just a guess - but thank you for clarifying ! that's very useful to know.