Fashion Copyrighted

Last week, the spring 2007 fashions were displayed in New York. Along with the fashions of 2007, comes the debate of 2006. Fashion designers want to copyright their designs because small unknown designers make profits mimicking their fashions. Top designers are upset that their style is being stolen and sold at low end places for low process. The debate points out that poetry can be copyrighted, why shouldn’t fashion? I believe that comparing poetry to fashion is far fetched and quite possibly ridiculous. Poetry and fashion are arguably both types of art but that is the only similarity. The question raised from this is of legality. Because people can copyright all art, should this extend to fashion? Public policy may want to interfere because fashion designers are losing money by the “copycat” designs sold at much lower prices. On the other hand, the consumer benefits because they have a choice of buying a $500 handbag or a $20 handbag that looks similar. I would like to hear more of what you think about this debate to extend copyrights to cover fashion. Before you answer this, I want to remind everybody that copying has been going on throughout the history of fashion and top designers are still around. If copying is such a problem, how do the fashion designers stay in business? Fashion designers are so popular that there is a 3rd season of a popular television show Project Runway. I personally believe that if congress approves the current bill to allow copyrighting of fashion, there will be a rush to copyright everything and the consumers will suffer from the high prices for fashion. J R Mortland III (Bob)

Responses

3 comments so far.

1. princess auguste says:

   fashion should be copyright because no likes people to copy their hard work. image working long hours , nights and days writing your poetry, designing your clothes , painting that master piece or working on your new albumn? how would you feel if someone who had nothing to do if your hard work copied it and got praise for it too. come on it's wrong for someone else to copy another person's hard work no matter if the product cost $500. it's wrong . instead of copying other people's work peoople should focus on how to get the price from 500 to 20 if without copying. copying is stealing, cheating and morally wrong no matter what justification.

2. Bob Mortland says:

   I like your take of this.. Thank you for your comment!!!!

3. Brad Couturier says:

   I understand the points that Princess made, but I slightly disagree. I love fashion and anything dealing with style and/or fashion. Price does matter. I've discovered some of the best poetry ever from the prices off of a bookshelf. I've discovered some of the greatest items of clothing because of the price on the tag. If these fashion designers are so concerned with their "artwork" being copied, then why is it they are making a polo shirt cost $60? I can go buy what I feel is an equally stylish polo shirt for $20... Why wouldn't I? If it is truly artwork, they are going to want it out there and for people to enjoy... And not everyone can enjoy spending $60 for a single shirt. I'm in no way saying that copying, plagiarizing, stealing, etc. are fine to do. We would be no where today if we never copied a single thing that was ever done. How has communication evolved? How are we sitting here debating this issue? Through copying what one person started. It evolved. When we write poetry, we copy a certain form. When we design a pair of pants, we copy the idea of pants. Designers today are copiers. So, it's hard for me to sit and let them think that they should have copyrights. They are not making something completely individual like poets do. A poem is completely unique. Because in order to copy it, it would be the same exact piece of work. To copy a style isn't taking the same exact outfit and selling it cheaper. To copy a style is to take an idea and apply it to the designer's own tastes.