Copyrighted designs that BAPE steal...

[neograff]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how Bape freely manages to get away with copying other companies sneaker designs??? eg. Nike's AF1, Puma etc... I know he apparently changes little tiny features on the shoes, but surely he still shouldn't get away with it. I like a bathing ape, but isn't it just a little unfair??

Edited by neograff on Nov 19, 2005 at 09:51 AM

[neawts]

The details make them different enough so that it's not an infringement. The brand logo and name aren't copied, so that's often all you need to change.

There are tons of shoes and sneakers that look very similar. There are companies that just make low cost copies of very expensive dress shoes. It's not so easy to trademark every little detail of a shoe (including shape).

Also, maybe this was a typo, but there is no Bape shoe inspired by the AM95.

[witts]

i was just thinkin that ... theres no bape max 95

[ninja life moves fast]

he prob meant am90

[witts]

have they done an am90?

[neawts]

From Hypebeast:

Looks more like the Air Bruin.

But really, it's not an exact copy or anything.

Edited by neawts on Nov 19, 2005 at 07:30 AM

[rakis]

A friend who runs a store in the Far East remarked that Nigo is doing what is often done in Japan.....they take a design, and improvise, innovate etc.....thus you get the variants of something similar but done with a Japanese twist and sense of "creativity".....

Some would draw comparisons between the Bape Camo print and the Maharishi camo bonsai print.....the Maharishi Sikh camo is based on the Indian Sikh regiment military wear......there is bastardisation in fashion oon a regular basis and just because its BAPE should not be any surprise....its not "unfair"....its up to the consumers....rock AF1s, Puma or Adidas or rock the BAPE versions......

[youwish]

If you go to payless you'll see knock off's of every top shoe. It's that little r with the circle around it that you can't touch. ie nike, the swoosh, puma logo, etc.

It takes strength to be gentle and kind.

[neograff]

Quote:

A friend who runs a store in the Far East remarked that Nigo is doing what is often done in Japan.....they take a design, and improvise, innovate etc.....thus you get the variants of something similar but done with a Japanese twist and sense of "creativity".....

Some would draw comparisons between the Bape Camo print and the Maharishi camo bonsai print.....the Maharishi Sikh camo is based on the Indian Sikh regiment military wear......there is bastardisation in fashion oon a regular basis and just because its BAPE should not be any surprise....its not "unfair"....its up to the consumers....rock AF1s, Puma or Adidas or rock the BAPE versions......

--- Original message by rakis on Nov 19, 2005 11:39 AM

Yeah I agree with the sense of japanese improvisation. I went to tokyo in the summer and noticed that sort of thing alot. I was just curious about how he actually gets away with it. Now I know...

[boystory]

yeah, madfoot and bape are literally the same company (cept i think madfoot's a bit tighter in terms of 'borrowing' from a more varied list of 'influences'...anyone got any madfoots? madfeet?)

[Adrian Wilson]

I am a photographer and along with musicians, writers and artists, our work is protected by copyright. Not just a little bit, but a good strong law whereby no-one can take one of my images and change the color of the sky and call it their own work.

So how come no-one submits their fashion based artwork to the library of congress for copyright protection? Is it just seen as endemic in the industry or can no-one be bothered?

I shot in a Garment District design studio recently and was shocked to see the "reference and inspiration " material. Basically things were being copied directly, there were post-its all over magazines saying things like "do the shorts on page 66" etc. All those "shopping" trips to Europe and Asia. Blatant plagiarism.

Maybe there is just an acceptance of it all but it must be depressing and also stifles originality when good ideas just get stolen by those with a bigger company.

So why can't people copyright their work. What is the difference between paint on canvas and screen print ink on fabric? Why does everyone seem to accept something that is only a tiny step away from the fake goods for sale on market stalls that Burberry, Prada and LV moans about so much?

Hypocricy, apathy or universality?

Adrian

Adrian Wilson

Interior and Architectural Photographer

www.interiorphotography.net

[boystory]

Quote:

I am a photographer and along with musicians, writers and artists, our work is protected by copyright. Not just a little bit, but a good strong law whereby no-one can take one of my images and change the color of the sky and call it their own work.

So how come no-one submits their fashion based artwork to the library of congress for copyright protection? Is it just seen as endemic in the industry or can no-one be bothered?

I shot in a Garment District design studio recently and was shocked to see the "reference and inspiration " material. Basically things were being copied directly, there were post-its all over magazines saying things like "do the shorts on page 66" etc. All those "shopping" trips to Europe and Asia. Blatant plagiarism.

Maybe there is just an acceptance of it all but it must be depressing and also stifles originality when good ideas just get stolen by those with a bigger company.

So why can't people copyright their work. What is the difference between paint on canvas and screen print ink on fabric? Why does everyone seem to accept something that is only a tiny step away from the fake goods for sale on market stalls that Burberry, Prada and LV moans about so much?

Hypocricy, apathy or universality?

Adrian

--- Original message by Adrian Wilson on Nov 19, 2005 09:46 PM

justin timberlake - cry me a river.mp3

[thomas_highstreet]

YOU NEVER SEEN THOSE SOCKS YOU HAD TO MAKE YOUR POPS TAKE BACK TO WHATEVER 'ALL FOR A POUND' STORE THEY WERE FROM?

SHIT HOT!!

"HIKE" EXCLUSIVES!

Edited by thomas_highstreet on Nov 19, 2005 at 09:55 PM

Edited by thomas_highstreet on Nov 19, 2005 at 09:56 PM

Edited by thomas_highstreet on Nov 19, 2005 at 09:56 PM

Edited by thomas_highstreet on Nov 19, 2005 at 09:57 PM

[Sauce]

It's a complex question. Most of the rest of the information here was from an article that I read from a law review article. If anyone is interested, I can get you the cite if you want to read the actual thing.

There has been a push to try to preserve the intellectual property of clothing designs. But for many reasons, it hasn't been effective. Basically, clothing designs are slightly different from other artforms because they are more functional and arguably less "artistic." Also, some argue that fashion designs shouldn't be protected because fashion design is purposefully intended to remain in the public domain, some have argued that this is the aspect that gives the fashion world vitality because it encourages people to design stuff so they can show it off when people wear it.

Intellectual property can be protected by 3 ways right now for fashion, and none of them are really effective.

1) Trademark

2) Patents

3) Copyrights

Trademark: for a product dsign to be protectable, the product design must be distinctive meaning that the product is proven either to be inherently distinctive or if the product has acquired secondary meaning. For various reasons, ripping just a logo is much more likely to get you in trouble because it is purely aesthtic and identifiable with the source logo or company.

But if you apply trademarks to not marks, but the actual design of the piece of clothing, then it gets very diffucult to apply. It's called trade dress enforcement. Trade dress enforcement is limited by functionality. Functionality is based on whether a product is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article. Therefore, if a design either serves a purely functional or aesthetic function, then it is unprotectable.

Patents: Patent apply only to original designs for articles of manufactures, and you must show novelty, nonobivousness, ornamentality, and nonfunctionality of the design. Obviously, fashion designs usual do serve a function and it is obvious. Clothing is inherently functional, is it's hard to demonstrate the need for a design patent.

Copyrights: These protects original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. Fashion designs usually have to show that the graphic or the design aspect of the work is physically or conceptually separable from its functional parts. Even then, only the non-functional aspect of the clothing is protected, so mostly the problem is in proof.

I hope this helps in explaining why Bape can take a show design from Nike, change it up a little, change all the logo, and still not be prosecuted for various arguably intellectual property infringements. On top of that, there's an argument to be made that Bape, under certain circumstances, add profits to Nike and therefore, it would be against the spirit of intellectual property protection which is supposed to encourage competition and innovation.

Edited by Sauce on Nov 19, 2005 at 11:21 PM