Jump to content

Urban Outfitters


sybaritical

Recommended Posts

yeah, that's a pretty blatant rip-off. but you know, the whole ironic bomber thing was done before johnny cupcakes, and continues to be done. same with the gun shooting ironic bullets (i.e. flowers). and shall i count the number of shirts with octopi? anyway, there's really not much originality in the hipster world these days. if anything, the guy should be flattered, and sell those shirts as 'the original'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

yeah, that's a pretty blatant rip-off. but you know, the whole ironic bomber thing was done before johnny cupcakes, and continues to be done. same with the gun shooting ironic bullets (i.e. flowers). and shall i count the number of shirts with octopi? anyway, there's really not much originality in the hipster world these days. if anything, the guy should be flattered, and sell those shirts as 'the original'.

--- Original message by giantreptile on Jan 17, 2006 08:40 AM

i agree,

and lawfully, any image chage by 3 percent you could claim to be your own work, its really hard to win this kind of law suits to tell you the truth.......

but yes never the less this kind of action done by urban is definitly a no no, but i dont blame them cause they contract out for their own lines and i know the folks that does it.....so in a sense, urban does not know they are buying rip off shirts. only the grfx artist who was working on the shirt knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm... now i know why i don't shop there, besides the reason that their clothing is marked up and sucks... you can tell from a mile away if someone gets their whole wardrobe from uo. they reek of contrived boho rocker chicness. anyone else also really turned off by how messy the place is??? but i have to admit... i go there after long walks in soho to sit on their couch and flip thru books to take a breather while we figure out what to eat for dinner. and then promptly leave. lol

thanks for the post. but is it me or this stuff happens a lot... which is why big companies tell you not to ever send any designs to them unless you work for them... lol because they will invariably steal them. and even if you work for them, they own all rights to what you have produced while working for them... so for the designer artist... its kinda like... i dunno rock and hard place? u either eat... or starve to death, you pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't hide your line if you want it to succeed.

The last thing you want is to be the best kept secret.

We sent samples to UO, ill-advised, but we did anyway.

We never got our samples back and no word either.

It may be safe to assume that the buyer works in the

art department judging by their tendency to rip-off designers.

You have to get your work out there and hope

that people think enough of it to rip it off! LOL

http://www.TheLifeLtd.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree entirely. You absolutely gotta be in it to win it, no matter what you're doing. But that's what makes UO's audacity in blatantly thieving countless designs and images so unpalatable to me. Instead of spending the time to nurture design talent they instead opt to produce a crappy piece of clothing with an extremely limited shelf life that will be trashed and forgotten by whoever buys it within one season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

urban outfitters does this all the time. their winter coats from this season were blatantly taken from the mackage line - same collars, button details, eyelets.

the company owns several "fake" labels like lux, uo, and charlotte. they stock real brands like seven, miss sixty, g-star, and triple five soul in an attempt to get people to come in, and once they're there, barrage them with all these "labels" that trick the customer into believing they are also "high end" casual brands. their profit margin is HUGE because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urban Outfitters very possibly didn't rip off the shirt. They just bought a rip off design and put it under their own label. Whether they knew it or not is debateable, Johnny Cupcakes isn't exactly a brand most fashion forward people aspire to knock off. They usually do a good job of knocking off higher end fashion/streetstyle, not aming so low.

Edited by Bronson on Jan 18, 2006 at 08:46 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canice's comments on Mackage is pretty true. I asked a customer at my workplace if that was an authentic Mackage piece, but she told me it was UO.

Having said that, I needing to start saving for a nice Mackage jacket next winter.

Getsuga Tenshou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 designs with a plane dropping cupcakes instead of bombs?

Come on. That would be a MAJOR coincidence.

Although, I have seen my a shirt I did a year and a half ago,

done by someone else and I don't think it was a rip off at all.

2 designers coming up with similar concepts is understandable and viable.

Urban Outfitters doing it and using their exposure to capitalize on that and exploit

up and coming designers is reprehensible and unforgivable.

The staff artists at Urban should be ashamed for executing such designs.

http://www.TheLifeLtd.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now, i'm neither supporting the practice or urban outfitters, but this is just the way of the world and of consumerism. whether it's urban outfitters or zara or your local old navy, they all rip from somewhere else. they go around, shop for original designs (high-end or just under-the-radar) and have their in-house designers 'copy-but-not-copy' the pieces. sometimes it's subtle, but most often it's not.

shit, just go to the largest supermarket near your house and buy their version of frosted flakes instead of the box with the kellog's name on it. same idea...in-house brand for a higher margin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

now, i'm neither supporting the practice or urban outfitters, but this is just the way of the world and of consumerism. whether it's urban outfitters or zara or your local old navy, they all rip from somewhere else. they go around, shop for original designs (high-end or just under-the-radar) and have their in-house designers 'copy-but-not-copy' the pieces. sometimes it's subtle, but most often it's not.

shit, just go to the largest supermarket near your house and buy their version of frosted flakes instead of the box with the kellog's name on it. same idea...in-house brand for a higher margin...

--- Original message by norcal on Jan 18, 2006 10:23 AM

AMEN!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very true, but that's ripping off branding as opposed to a design itself.

Someone changing CK to say GK using the same layout and font is infringing on a trademark, that's illegal.

These sneaky fucks are directly using someones designs as "inspiration", there's a gray area.

They know it and they exploit it.

http://www.TheLifeLtd.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind it's a blatant rip off...

but if you are in the clothing biz, you have to know that this WILL happen and continue to happen.

From what I read about this on thehundreds, the johnny cupcakes t-shirt came out a year or so prior to the UO knock off. I should hope by now he's moved on to newer and better designs.

There's not much point in trying to sue anyone over this...it's a waste of time.

You could send a cease and desist letter or better yet just move on...

If UO is copying your designs, it's because they think they're hot and will make money.

Many years ago a friend of mine had an urban outfitters rep say to her "let us carry your line so we don't have to knock it off"...UO knows what they're doing and it's all about the papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canice:

Quote: who pretends they are too cool for cupcakes?
icon_smile_big.gif

Dagsolo:

Quote: 2 designers coming up with similar concepts is understandable and viable.

Urban Outfitters doing it and using their exposure to capitalize on that and exploit

up and coming designers is reprehensible and unforgivable.

Nicely put you hit it square on point.

Norcal:

Quote: but this is just the way of the world and of consumerism.
Of course, but it's interesting how the obvious ethical issues involved here also raise a lot of questions about how UO views its target market and exploits any notions of individuality they might have. But then again, I've never shopped there and I'm probably overestimating the average UO customer.

AND.

Giantreptile: what's lazy sunday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...