This article from Art Law department at Harvard explains that artists have certain rights within the creation of their works.  One-way is through appropriation art: the quoting of work from other artists.  Artists borrows elements from the original that may stay completely unchanged, however, the new work uses the original to create something new.  Appropriation art took place as far back as Raphael’s Judgment of Paris c.1515, which was since lost but one of the artist’s employees, Raimondi, made an etching of it, which proceeded to be copied over and over.  Three centuries later, Manet took part of this image and inserted it into his painting, Le Dejeuner Sur L’Herbe.  A century later, Picasso translated Manet’s work in a series of paintings.   Thus, artists’ have always relied on being inspired and influenced by earlier works.

The Roger v. Koons (1992) case, wherein Jeff Koons commissioned a sculpture of Art Roger's photograph postcard, and in so doing, violated Rogers’ copyright of his original work, is regarded as the primary modern day case of appropriation art.  Koons’ work copies the original exactly, although the puppies are painted a vivid blue, have bulbous noses, and the two figures are decorated with three flowers, which does not occur in the original.

Koons has been in a number of cases in which he has tried to argue for parody or satire, for example, in order to deem his work transformative enough from the original, and thus fair use.  Appropriation art is a major get-out-of-jail free card, that gives artists the ‘artistic license’ that is arguably essential in creating great works, as exemplified by the fact that the most well recognized artists have been doing this for centuries.

As I am getting older, my affinity for shoes and bags is growing with my years. It is not necessarily the name, but the style and the feel, the look of bags and shoes that draw me to spend more and more on fashion. I spend time flipping through catalogues and websites, walking through stores, just appreciating the things I will never own for the financial burden of a shoe and bag obsession has caused a dip in my credit at a young age. However, the abundance of knock-off's for name brands, being sold at much more affordable prices, pose an obvious threat to the fashion aesthete. Just because they look the same, are they same? Who would know? Is the quality the same? The color? Because one brand creates a cute patent leather pump with a rounded toe, and soon after another is selling a shockingly similar shoe, has there been an instance of fashion fraud? Where are the fashion police, the crusaders of all things good and just? Who says what can be determined as having artistic integrity and or intellectual creativity? The moment an idea comes to one's mind, should they file for some sort of protection? The thought process and intellectual property law forever obscure the lines for all concerned about legal protection. Regardless of the medium, intellectual property law is a dynamic field and asks its noble followers to help untangle the messy web of ambiguity. Where do our thoughts and individual creativity meet at the crossroads of copyright and protection? In the fashion industry, one of the world's fastest growing entities as well as large supplier of creative material, intellectual property law and copyright are a new development in the protection of designs and details, sweaters and stitching. Whether in sketch form or in skirt, from the drawing board to the boardroom, fashion copyright is complicated. Can it be protected? When does an instance of 'substantial similarity' become imitation or worse, chargeable theft? Can the line be drawn? If copyright law is extended to include protection for fashion design, will the world of fashion be forever affected? The blurriness in the fashion design industry resulting from the almost counterintuitive cycle of fashion profits spurred by piracy makes it incredibly difficult to decide. Ultimately, copyright protection for fashion design is necessary and without protection, piracy will continue to hinder the progress of creativity and production as well as cause a discontinuity in what can be considered organic artistic thought.