Alexander McQueen on the left, Steve Madden on the right
I came upon this link about Alexander McQueen, who is suing Steve Madden for copying one of his shoes, after sending a cease and desist letter in September that was met with refusal from Steve Madden to stop producing and selling the bootie. The Steve Madden shoe is almost an exact copy of Alexander McQueen’s, minus the zipper pull with the Alexander McQueen trademark. This immediately reminded me of the Nina Ricci/Twilight apple-shaped perfume bottle conflict that we talked about earlier this year, except for one huge difference: fashion can’t be copyrighted.
Not that it hasn’t been tried, as demonstrated by the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which is a pending bill that was proposed in 2006 that would give copyright protection to fashion designs for three years. Currently, only laws against counterfeit goods protect clothes, and even then it only applies to some designs where a trademark is used (think Fucci bags sold on Canal…). During a hearing for the bill on July 27th, 2006, there was disagreement amongst both legal experts and people from the fashion industry as to whether or not this bill is necessary and as of today, it is still pending. Interestingly though, the US is the only western nation that doesn’t protect fashion designs. Those who don’t support the bill argue that copyrighting fashion would hurt the little guy who wouldn’t be able to challenge larger clothing corporations, should they be accused of copyrighting, as well as hurt fabric and sewing stores as a result of less people selling their clothing.
The issue of fashion not being copyrightable came up briefly in one of our readings and I know Caroline touched on this a little in her blog post about the Forever21 shirt, but I was wondering, what does everyone else think about this? How does the creativity that is involved in fashion differ from that in other arts that are currently protected under copyright law, especially when you look at the dispute over the perfume bottles? I’m kind of stuck in the middle with this issue (damn you Wikipedia, with your neutral point of view!), as I feel like both sides present valid points, but maybe someone can convince me one way or the other…
My first thought was that it would be interesting if there were a system, similar to songs, in which there was a government set rate for buying the right to mimic the fashion of a designer. However, I feel like McQueen’s market in this case, and in many cases of high fashion being copied, does not need to be protected, because their market is not being harmed per se. McQueen’s boots cost over $1100 while the Steve Madden alternative costs about $130. I do not think the majority of those who buy the Steve Madden’s would be willing to pay $1000 more to purchase McQueen’s booties even if they were the only booties on the market.
This is a good point and I like this discussion. I fully understand the creativity that is put into designing, but the fashion industry boils down to just being clothes for the average crowd. Haute couture and runway shows present clothes that will be “in” for the season, but those outfits cost thousands of dollars, something most people can’t afford, as Jenna points out–the target consumer is just different.
These designs are the inspiration to create clothes you find at Target and Forever 21. It’s nearly impossible to copyright/trademark the collar of a shirt, the placement of buttons and buckles, and the amount of stripes across the shirt. We need these clothes to be affordable but people won’t just wear solid color tees I think.
Here’s an example I made: http://i37.tinypic.com/21bvmt3.jpg
It’s pretty clear that the BB Dakota was inspired by the Prada dress, but a season later (which also inspired dresses at H&M, etc, if you pay attention). So what part of it/how would it be copyrighted?
I agree with Caroline, I just don’t see how it is possible. I don’t feel the inspired designs are infringing since the market for high end designers serves such a different clientele. The quality of the shoe or name behind the shoe are what makes people desire them when you remove the design or artistic aspect. I think its ridiculous that a designer like steve madden would copy a shoe, since he should aspire to possess his own creative look, but that will just devalue him. His shoes will become known as knock offs… silly move steve.
lolol where is a beer whenever you need one