avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags

Raustiala, Kal and Sprigman, Chris,The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 92, p. 1687, 2006; UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-04.

This paper is extremely informative in that it addresses both sides of fashion copyright, whereas most other papers point out only one side of the argument. Moreover, it explores the question of why other major industries have obtained and used powerful IP protections for their products, while the fashion industry is for the most part still ineffective yet very economically successful. First, the paper argues that there should be an effective copyright on fashion because it protects the designers' creativity. However, it also argues that a weak IP actually helps the fashion industry in its innovation. Specifically, the terms "induced obsolescence" and "anchoring" are mentioned to explain that copying is actually beneficial for the fashion industry and in fact promotes fashion.

I will be able to refer to this article a great deal when writing my own paper because it explains how the fashion industry’s piracy paradox works and explores how copying plays an important role in the fashion industry’s innovation cycle. It also gives an ample of amount of history about fashion copyright, which is very important for my paper. Finally, it will help me to support my thesis because it talks about both sides of the argument. Therefore, in my paper, I will be able to address both sides of the fashion copyright problem and give reliable information to support either side, although ultimately, I will acknowledge that there should not be a fashion copyright.

Hedrick, Lisa J.,Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams. Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 215-273, 2008.

Lisa Hedrick's "Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams" discusses the possible consequences that may occur with the enactment of more effective fashion protection. More specifically, the paper points out the different proposals and bills concerning fashion copyright and protection and their effects on the fashion industry. Hedrick explains that copyright protection may not even be essential to make sure that innovation continues; annual sales in the US fashion industry increased from approximately 130 billion to over 200 billion over the past decade. Moreover, fashion protection could potentially create even more problems - if Congress enacts stronger protection, other creative industries, like food, furniture, and cars, may also request protection. Therefore, fashion protection may become the foundation for a big expansion of the US's intellectual property law. Hedrick also stresses the importance of "conceptual separability" in determining whether a product can attain protection. Conceptual separability is the expression that courts use to decide which parts of a product are qualified for copyright protection and which parts are not. This, however, has created confusing lawsuits and leaves most clothing designs unprotected. So despite several congressional attempts, effective protection for fashion and other products of design has never pulled through. Furthermore, Hedrick acknowledges that copyright for fashion is extremely difficult, especially for specific designs. Hedrick substantiates her point by quoting David Wolfe, a creative director for a fashion marketing and consulting company. He stated, "It is possible to create a new textile, a new print, but a new design is almost impossible because all we are doing in creating a new one is putting together existing elements in a different way" (241). Therefore, a key reason why fashion copyright is currently so feeble is because the qualifications for attaining the copyright is extremely difficult.

Ultimately, Hedrick explains that the fashion industry may thrive most effectively if Congress distinguishes fashion copyright laws and other similar types of protection from other industries such as food and furniture. Therefore, this paper will help me explain to my readers that because effective fashion protection is very difficult to achieve, it is better to have no protection than little protection. Thus, this will support my thesis, which argues that fashion copyright should not be enacted.