Copy Cat

Plagiarism is banned in schools, and authors who lift complete sentences from fellow wordsmiths are sneered.  But when it comes to fashion, where runaway translates to streetwear within mere days, is copyrighting design possible?

$300 billion and recent havoc in copying designs seem to point towards that direction.  Last year, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York proposed a law that would protect unique, original fashion ideas.  At first glance, this might seem like a good idea:  designers deserve their due for their imagination.  But, as the Freakonomics duo comment (http://www.freakonomicsmedia.com/2010/08/30/copyrighting-fashion-who-gains/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13raustiala.html?scp=1&sq=raustiala&st=cse), "there is almost nothing new under the sun in fashion."  In other words, the classic American pasttime, the lawsuit.  What does this mean?  Regulation would entail restrictions, causing higher prices, less demand, falling sales, and - ironically - a hindering of creativity.  Not something a struggling industry on the brink of recovery needs post-recession (http://www.slate.com/id/2137954/).

Our Freakonomics friends argue that in reality, this is a reflection of the fashion elite.  Schumer is backed up by the exclusive, invitation-only Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), who cry foul at the outright burglary of their creativity.  The Freakonomists point towards the 1930s, when a fashion cartel known as the "Fashion Originators Guild" united retailers and designers and prevented copying, creating an illegal price-fixing scheme that was dismantled in 1941 by the Supreme Court, who deemed the outfit a "restraint of trade" and "violation of American antitrust law."  Any amateur economist will know that a cartel hurts competition and harms consumers with inflated prices - and the passage of such a law may wander into such dangerous territory.

Readers may think The Fashionomist is picking an old fight - after all, these articles are so 2010.  But recent news has the fashion patent back on the center stage:  cheaponista fashion maven Forever 21 has come under scrutiny for duplicating runway looks, going so far as to settle out of court with designers who claim that the retail hotshot has stolen ideas (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_05/b4213090559511.htm and http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2011/02/legally-chic-should-fashion-designs-receive-copyright-protection-local-asian-american-experts-designers-weigh-in-on-the-debate/).

The Fashionomist debates what the consequences of copyrighting fashion are.  While imitation is the highest form of flattery, one can see why designers are boiling with rage with nearly identical streetwear selling for much less.  Yet, The Fashionomist ponders, isn't that the entire goal of fashion - to influence streetwear and be accessible to the masses?  A trend is not a trend unless a broad swath of people can partake in it.  And fashion can greatly benefit from competition, fueling further creativity and forcing designers who would otherwise ignore certain costs to pay attention to them in an effort to create quality lines that capture a design at a lower cost.  Fashion is the one place a trickle-down effect works, and to deny this would be a huge loss for consumers and producers.

The Fashionomist's take?  Balance:  Loosen up and realize the power and potential of the masses, elite designers; use that noggin and creatively cost-reduce while retaining trend, fast fashion.  Unfortunately, it's all easy to say but hard to do.


*The Fashionomist*