Designer "inspired" items

[fndmybetterhalf]

just out of curiosity, what about the never ending reproduction of various chuck taylors and jack purcells? what are peoples' take on that

[dismalfuture]

Is corter in the realm of BlackScissors-like evil, or is he under the umbrella of safety, chillin with Samurai and Toyo Ent.?

[dismalfuture]

Both jeans and Converse-inspired sneakers are based off items that are 100 years old or more and have constantly been produced in mass quantities since, so I think some people (such as Duck) may hold them to be 'generic,' though Levi's may beg to differ.

If I went and copped some talented Asian children to make a run of CCP fencing jackets (changing 10% of the design), there'd be quite a few angry indivduals (a good percentage of whom are also members on this board). If I had them make G-1 jackets, who would even notice?

It's hard to choose a side.

[sidneylo]

Yeah, it's tough when you look at the whole culture/enthusiasm behind the hobby of western items. Corter's doing his own thing making those wallets and getting to participate in that repro aspect.

That's a very fallible argument but hey.

[Charlie Delta]

You are absolutely right about those points and that's where it gets murky...

And while Corter indeed started out with copying Redmoon designs, this was mainly him practicing as nowadays he's making 100% Corter designed stuff afaik.

Also the stuff he's doing is in a very small niche where almost everyone works around an existing shape that no one person came up with but that evolved into what it is these days...

There is also the difference between someone actively copying a CCP fencing jacket (for the fact that it's a Poell piece) instead of any fencing jacket in general...

For one regular fencing jackets are not done in leather...

[dismalfuture]

At this point in this thread, I would like to admit that I have a predetermined list of things I buy that I consider okay for going generic on/cheaping out on, and then the list of things where I wouldn't consider anything but the genuine article. =\ I suppose most people are this way, guys especially...

[PoeticJustice]

There is also the difference between someone actively copying a CCP fencing jacket (for the fact that it's a Poell piece) instead of any fencing jacket in general...

For one regular fencing jackets are not done in leather...

Is it really? Fencing jackets were made out of leather back in the days, so CCP is really only "reproducing" a classic piece.

[Zacdog]

I think there's a difference in a repro and a fake, Just as Sidney said. I don't have a problem with stuff that says "inspired by", what I do have a problem with is the scumbags who try to pass of there fake stuff as real.

[mellowbonsai]

Cotton Duck i think your story is not about ultimately about the integrity of an idea, but its ownership. if i am misinterpreting, please elaborate more on integrity.

the biggest complication is price. peter's monetary evaluation of his work is arbitrary, save for a "base" cost of the materials used for each drawing.

but someone too poor to cop an original peter could just talk to him and explain their situation, and he (as he is so sympathetically painted in your story) would agree to lower his price. but this is where reality comes in: i, a consumer with no relationship or leverage over any "peter" out there (say, patrick ervell), cannot negotiate that price, especially since he sold his drawing to someone else, who has an interest in making a profit

so this is where i see my friend john. john's skilled replications of others' work demonstrates an appreciation for peter's craft, the difference being his low price reflects the cynicism we share when looking at that $100 price tag. why should peter sell his drawings for so much? peter' sprice is excluding people who are equally passionate about his work, but are of more modest means. $100 to us is infinitely more valuable than $100 to someone who can purchase many of peter's paintings and still afford to live comfortably.

i acknowledge that the johns out there run the gamut of the moral spectrum. some seek to manipulate the demands of consumers to make a profit (but is this not a motivation john shares with peter?). others are like the altruistic john i described above, and may even seek the consent of peter to recreate his work

also, what if peter stops drawing with watercolors and moves on to acrylic? how should demand for more watercolors be met if he doesnt want to make them anymore? limitations can be temporal and geographic, not just monetary

and what comprises the integrity of the idea, a leather jacket? is it that this idea may only be expressed by the person who thought of it first? if this is true, it promotes an illusion that the idea is "pure" or "original" to begin with, and that there exists an immutable hierarchy of access to ideas based on income. it is the price that creates this hierarchy, or enforces a pre-existing one. and anyone who believes in equal access to ideas will seek to destroy this hierarchy

but the owner cannot protect his idea from everyone, nor can everyone equally access the idea. the compromise is yesstyle, black scissors, H&M, ikea, prints of famous paintings, samples (music) russian spies in alamo reverse engineering the atom bomb and wolfgang puck chain restaurants.

todesengel is right when he says this has been going on for quite awhile, and not just in fashion.

[Charlie Delta]

Is it really? Fencing jackets were made out of leather back in the days, so CCP is really only "reproducing" a classic piece.

I didn't know that, thanks!

Then there is the new question if people wanting a leather fencing jacket want a reproduction of a vintage piece or if they actually want a CCP "inspired piece"...

It seems crass when people ask a service like black scissors to make a replica from a photo of a DH jacket, but do you put the same judgement on those wearing a leather coat from H&M or Zara?

I do, Fuck H&M and Fuck Zara!

edit: the difference being that the majority of the people who shop at either of those places won't know that they're buying an "inspired" piece, can't really blame them for wanting a cheap leather jacket, I blame H&M/Zara for offering them an unoriginal item...

[2000dB]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I feel there's also a difference between derivative and straight rip. Even if you change 10% like blackscissors claims to do but you keep the defining little quirks of a certain designer (dh's darts, ro's multiple stitch little underzip thingy, etc) then in my mind it clearly becomes an attempt at ripping of and not just building on something pre-existing. I mean, I won't hate something based off an existing design if it's used in the right context and for the right reason (like margiela does so well).

On another note, blackscissor's signature is highly ironic... maybe I'll steal it.

[chronoaug]

It's hard to tell whether a person wanting a ccp rip jacket wants it because they just like the look of the fencing jacket and details and want one of their own that they can't find, or they want the jacket because it's obviously ccp inspired. The latter puts the person in the "keeping up with the jones'" that hocus pocus brought up and is basically the same as buying a LV knockoff purse. There aren't a ton of leather fencing jackets with a nice fit and interesting details like there are monogram purses.

I for one enjoy the look of some of the RO leather jackets regardless of the RO name. I live in florida so i don't care much for leather jackets, but from trying them on at stores occasionally, it's hard to find a nice looking, interesting and slim fitting leather jacket for a reasonable price. Either pay a shit ton for a high end designer jacket, or more than it's worth from zara/h&m/fcuk/club monaco. If i were in a colder climate, i'd consider a black scissors jacket simply because of the price and interesting look. I'm not well versed in leather jacket designs so when i browsed the blackscissors thread/website and saw the photos he posted of finished jackets, i really had no clue about what designers inspired them.

The whole notion taking a picture of a designer piece and them recreating it for profit is kind of strange and makes me feel weird about it though. There's not really a question that blackscissors is simply stealing ideas for a profit though. As ducky has said in that thread before, it would be nice to see blackscissors branch out and try some original, or even inspired by designs without 100% just copying designs.

[DüM]

I honestly think it's gangsta as fuck of them, shark bitin' niggas or not.

[whitney]

has Diane von Furstenberg copyrighted the wrap dress yet?

[2000dB]

Some people have low morals and integrity.

[Charlie Delta]

peter's monetary evaluation of his work is arbitrary, save for a "base" cost of the materials used for each drawing.

Bonsai, with this you say that the hours of an artist who has studied, researched, interned and is considered "good" are worth less than the hours of a lawyer, doctor, whatever?

Yes "good" artists get paid more, but so do good lawyers...

Indeed maybe not everybody can afford Pete's his $100 dollar drawing, just as not everyone can afford a very expensive lawyer.

The fact that it's less easy to put a lawyer and all of his qualities through a copymachine doesn't mean that it's ok to do the same thing with the work of an artist just because that's easier to do...

What happened to the idea that if you really want something that you are passionate about but can't afford it just yet that you save up for it?

Somehow you make it sound like it is all about money, but what about Pete his time, love and passion put into the work, are they not worth to be respected?

Apart from the money part, how would Peter feel about someone copying his work?

That's what I meant with the integrity, there seems to be no respect anymore towards what somebody came up with.

Ofcourse in this postmodernist world no idea is considered "original" or "pure", and by putting whatever idea out there it will be open for everybody to see, but does that means that it also should be for everyone to take?

ex:Yes the colour red has existed since forever and yes jeans have existed since quite some time, but if someone decides to combine those two, would that not be considered a somewhat "fresh" idea.

If someone from within the same industry would all of the sudden also start making red jeans, wouldn't he then be so "inspired" by said idea that he also wanted it?

Would the combination of red+jeans not be considered the idea of said first person.

Or atleast he was the first to do something with it...

The fact that this has been happening for a long time doesn't neccesarily make it ok, designers and artists are constantly being ripped off, all they can do (and will do if they are good) is keep coming up with "new" ideas.

[whitney]

i hate fakes.

most fakes have to do more with the branding itself (e.g. having the label's initials monogrammed all over) anyways unless there is a niche to it (like a distinct hardware that the label is known for-- chloe's padlock) and i hate it not only because it is 'low in morals and integrity' but those who usually purchase it do know that it is fake and the reason behind the purchase is what irks me.

inspired is a bit harder to contend with because most of the time it is an 'idea' that they're stealing.. (inspired goods being that they would look similar but would not have the Vuitton monogram on it..maybe xoxo) and unfortunately intent is a bit harder to prove when it comes to 'ideas'.

however i agree with polishmike and fakes/inspired goods..whether you like them or not..they don't really make a huge impact overall on the company/label that is being 'copied' from because those who can't afford it would never buy it anyways and those who buy it buy it for the love of clothes/bags/design and would continue to buy it regardless. There are a few, rare exceptions but i don't think those are big enough to impact the big wings..its the little guys (pple starting out) that would have a bit more of a difficult time with technology and how fast fakes can be churned out..

[Charlie Delta]

^Here's the thing; the people churning out the fake/inspired stuff do not care if they are faking from big or little guys...

People also tend to underestimate how much of the big names are actually little guys...

[masuerte]

I'm not very familiar with design and intellectual property/patent rights, Cotton Duck care to hookitup with some reading sources for this? This stuff is super interesting.

edit... found some wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law

etc.

[whitney]

^Here's the thing; the people churning out the fake/inspired stuff do not care if they are faking from big or little guys...

People also tend to underestimate how much of the big names are actually little guys...

true..in terms of clothing, especially when most people buy clothes for 'freshness' and aren't so nit picky about details..but i was talking more about handbags in my earlier reply and when i meant big labels i meant the ones people normally think of automatically..eg Vuitton, Chanel, Dior, Gucci..

As for my first reply, i brought up the 'has dvf copyrighted the wrap dress yet' cos there was this interesting article about how designers are having to contend with places like h&m and zara, thanks to the advances we've made we don't have to wait months for knockoffs to appear, some would come as soon as designers' rtw hit the sales floor if not before..

if those that were making the copycat clothes came out six months later then the designer's the designer would already be done with and on to the next 'idea'. Cos i mean, there have always been inspired goods/knockoffs but its only these past few years that you might say really has impacted those big/little names (i apologize for not recognizing those big names that are actually little guys).

Right now it might hurt the 'big/little guys' but ultimately i think (more like hope) people who truly love a piece would buy it from where it originated from and realize places like h&m and zara who are able to churn out those 'inspired' goods are just disposable stores really.

[mellowbonsai]

Bonsai, with this you say that the hours of an artist who has studied, researched, interned and is considered "good" are worth less than the hours of a lawyer, doctor, whatever?

What happened to the idea that if you really want something that you are passionate about but can't afford it just yet that you save up for it?

Somehow you make it sound like it is all about money, but what about Pete his time, love and passion put into the work, are they not worth to be respected?

Apart from the money part, how would Peter feel about someone copying his work?

The fact that this has been happening for a long time doesn't neccesarily make it ok, designers and artists are constantly being ripped off, all they can do (and will do if they are good) is keep coming up with "new" ideas.

• i think that the hours a designer puts into a garment can make it more valuable, but as soon as the price exceeds the cost of materials, you are answering the question "how much is my time, skill, etc., worth?"... okay, it is not arbitrary, but it is certainly more debatable than "cost of materials"
  
• personal answer: perhaps if i exercised some extreme financial discipline and patience i could afford a real Dior leather jacket. BUT: say i make $10,000 a year. the retail price of a Dior leather jacket doesnt change for any consumer, but that $3000 is much more valuable to me than someone who makes $100,000 a year.
  
• how do you think peter makes me feel when he charges so much for his drawings? hes asking me to make a larger sacrifice, depending on disposable income... see above. and it probably depends on the designer. im sure some are more comfortable than others about having their designed copied by yesstyle and H&M.
  
• yes, i agree. just because "it's always been that way" has never been a good reason to justify anything (extreme example: slavery)... but i feel the practice will continue anyhow. i think the tension between ownership and equal access is irreconcilable, and will always result in a compromise. i hope that there are more companies like Uniqlo, that collaborate with designers to make their ideas more affordable instead of ripping them off.

i frame the argument around money, because if it wasnt ultimately about money, ventures like black scissors wouldnt succeed. honesty is a key variable though. black scissors is not decieving their customers into believing they are purchasing the original product.

the other issue is availability. what if i want a RO jacket from S/S05, but couldn't track one down for the life of me?

[Fookums]

The way I see the Japanes repro denim is that it originally was created from a love for a certain type of jeans from a certain era, a love that went way further than just the red tab and arc.

A few of the people who loved those vintage Levi's so much wanted to reproduce those jeans, as they were get harder and harder to find in the vintage market and Levi's themselves was way too busy churning out "Mom jeans".

The originators of the repro denim went to extremes to get their jeans as close as possible to the original, only changing the arcs and tabs slightly because they weren't allowed to simply copy them.

This is one of the cases were I'd say that "imitation is the highest form of flattery"...

What they do is (in my eyes) completely different from a "see this item, you want it but can't get it, we'll make it for you for cheaper" mentality.

What about the Self Edge collabs [specifically the SExI04 and SExIH01]?

Aren't they just "copies" [albeit with different denim]?

In that case, both are copies of the dior fit, and at lower price points to boot. Or do the different materials qualify it as a form of flattery rather than an imitation?

If that's the case, if I asked Black Scissors to make me a copy of a Dior jacket, but with a different type of leather, would that be acceptable?

The way I see it [in this case with collabs which are blatant "fit-copies"], the consumer is paying for the fit and for the denim. However, the dior cut is clearly unique compared to most jeans, thus, isn't buying a copy from black scissors and its ilk the same as purchasing a SExIH01/SExI04?

[Charlie Delta]

re: Mellowbonsai

Fine, we stand on different sides on this, I can go and type out another long post, but it probably won't make a difference, and I'd rather go to bed now so I'll leave it at this for now.

One final thing, you can't have everything in life you know, people see something nice and they need to own it. Be happy with what you have and be happy for others with what they have...

[mellowbonsai]

thanks for those links, masuerte... this quote gets at the essence of my position:

Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility--reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge--at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude.

tangentially related: for anyone concerned about H&M labor practices: http://www.alternet.org/story/23267/?page=1

[styleofmind]

What about the Self Edge collabs [specifically the SExI04 and SExIH01]?

Aren't they just "copies" [albeit with different denim]?

In that case, both are copies of the dior fit, and at lower price points to boot. Or do the different materials qualify it as a form of flattery rather than an imitation?

If that's the case, if I asked Black Scissors to make me a copy of a Dior jacket, but with a different type of leather, would that be acceptable?

The way I see it [in this case with collabs which are blatant "fit-copies"], the consumer is paying for the fit and for the denim. However, the dior cut is clearly unique compared to most jeans, thus, isn't buying a copy from black scissors and its ilk the same as purchasing a SExIH01/SExI04?

I can't see any flaws with this argument.

Different materials? Tick.

Different branding? Tick.

Admission to "inspiration"? Tick.

[polishmike]

for people looking for further reading, sorry only one-sided "against copyright" stuff, you might be interested in this:

Here is an interesting part of the article "Fashion Has No Owner":

If passed into law, a bill referred to Congress would extend copyright protection to fashion designs, from dresses and shoes to belts and eyeglass frames. Prominent designers argue that their designs are being copied even before they appear on the market and this puts their business at risk. They are demanding a three-year copyright over their creations, claiming that they would have a greater incentive to innovate if they were the only ones to get the benefit of their effort.

A similar argument, however, could be advanced by philosophers or economists to demand a copyright over their ideas. Why could a designer copyright a design while a scientist cannot copyright his new theory of evolution? What is the difference between registering a fashion design and registering the Pythagorean Theorem, the law of diminishing marginal utility or the plot of Shyamalan's latest film? If the inventor of the supermarket, the wheel or the ladder had patented his idea, would we say that he was merely protecting his property or would we have accused him of protecting himself against competition? Does the fashion lobby aim to defend their legitimate property or to unjustly profit by shielding themselves from competition? Copyrights and patents are intellectual property rights, that is, rights in ideal objects. Why can some ideas be protected and not others? The fact that even the defenders of intellectual property consider absurd the proposal that any (and every) kind of idea should be protected and that they must therefore establish an arbitrary limit suggests that there is something strange about these "rights over ideal objects" and that the parallel between property over material objects and property over immaterial objects is only apparent.

...

In the case of fashion, why is it illegitimate that, after seeing a dress in a catwalk or on a store display, we later reproduce it with our own fabric? Whose rights do we infringe when we apply the information in our mind on our property? As Roderick Long points out, we can only have a right to that which we can control (because "property" means a "right to control"), and we cannot control an idea that resides in the minds of others. An idea, of course, can be kept secret (as is the case with trade secrets), but once it has been made public, a right to its exclusive control cannot be coherently claimed, because that idea is now being "controlled" by anyone who has internalized it.

Zara and H&M do just this when they reproduce the designs of more expensive brands: their designers are on the lookout to see what others have done. Then they internalize the concept and then it is applied to their legitimately acquired fabric. Must a designer become a partial owner of every piece of fabric in the world by the mere fact of having thought of a way to use it? Further, rarely is an idea completely original; only a small part of it is original and the rest is borrowed from existing ideas. Quoting Thomas Edison: "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration." We do not live in a vacuum; it is impossible to avoid using past knowledge and other’s ideas when living and acting in the world. This is especially true in the case of the fashion industry, whose innovation is largely based on preexisting knowledge. Designers would be copyrighting an idea as it were completely new and entirely conceived in their minds, when in reality they borrow from other designs, history, art and things that surround them.

The argument that copyright serves as an incentive for creation does not seem convincing. The fashion industry is one of the most innovative, probably because designers can use preexisting knowledge without restrictions, and constantly redefine and reinvent ideas. As Michele Bodrin and David Levine say:

"While each individual innovator may earn more revenue from innovating if he has an intellectual monopoly, he also faces a higher cost of innovating: he must pay off all those other monopolists owning rights to existing innovations. Indeed, in the extreme case when each new innovation requires the use of lots of previous ideas, the presence of intellectual monopoly may bring innovation to a screeching halt."

full version Fashion Has No Owner

[eric glennie]

True fashion innovations are patentable and imitations are copyrighted. Copyrights arent scrutinized like patents , therefore the difference of 3 years protections for a copyright and 17 years for a patent. True fashion designers own patents and fashion labels own copyrights. I own 6 patents and more are pending.

[eric glennie]

True fashion innovations are patentable and imitations are copyrighted. Copyrights arent scrutinized like patents , therefore the difference of 3 years protections for a copyright and 17 years for a patent. True fashion designers own patents and fashion labels own copyrights. I own 6 patents and more are pending.

I wanted to extrapolate on this statement!

A totally unique and new collar as such is patentable

A necktie, which has already been invented, but shown in a different way is copyrightable like in my unique suspended necktie knot. Once again, innovations are patentable whereas copyrights are spins on an already innovative product.

[red]

PENlS !

[landho]