Long ago, the courts ruled that clothes were too utilitarian to allow for copyright protection. This has resulted in the fashion industry being underpinned by a culture of sharing, in which designers can seek inspiration from the past, from the present, from the world around them, and most importantly from each other. There is nothing, but a sense of unspoken etiquette and perhaps a personal desire to create something individual, preventing designers from completely copying each other's work. The whole basis behind this lack of copyright protection is that the courts did not want a handful of designers owning the rights to the most basic parts of our clothing, which would have resulted in anyone producing apparel at later dates having to apply for licensing from these select few in order to do so. So as it stands, much like the car industry, designers are only covered by trademark protection, which prevents one from copying the symbol or logo that distinguishes this brand from others. Maybe this accounts for all the crap logo orientated bags that flew around in the 90s. One can only hope.
It has been suggested that this ability to copy one another is the impetus for the trends that take the industry by storm season after season. This is in so much as it is, for example, decided that leather will be huge this Autumn/Winter, and then all the designers jump on the band-wagon to work towards this common theme. I'm personally not convinced. At least i don't want to be. As i have harped on about before, for me collections are much more than a selection of 20+ outfits. They are not just clothes but stories through which heroines who, regardless of whether they are dark and gothic or fun and flirty, always epitomize strong and powerful women who have tales to tell. They have a history and something to share, and we sit on the edge of our seats, with baited breath, to understand. This is why the thought that the designers join together to create trends sits so uncomfortably with me. The focus would be less on the story behind their work, and more on the sales and popularity of their work. Could it not just be a natural progression? For example, is it not more reasonable to understand the contemporary direction away from the exuberant to the classic, timeless and iconic pieces that so dominantly make up our past as a reflection of the economic crisis that hit the purses of the customer and reinstated the need for quality and reassurance?
This lack of copyright protection has made it possible for the high-street to be as design-led as it is. Without the possibility of copying the silhouettes of the luxury brands, we would all still be walking around in leaf thongs and bras. Which, whilst traveling on the tube in 30 degree heat, wouldn't actually be so bad. But my point is, there would be no progression that would suitably appeal to an increasingly style-conscious public. Although i do completely disagree with exact knock-off merchandise (isn't it interesting how Pheobe Philo created such a strong image for the Celine woman this Spring that you actually feel bad when you walk into Zara and instantly recognise the purist lines as almost identical replicas?) i think that the ability to copy and re-create looks has a positive effect on the fashion industry as it creates an all inclusive world in which the designers' customer is not just the individual who buys from their collection, but every single woman who buys an item of clothing that has been inspired by their design. It is just as Meryl Streep said to the annoying one in that famous speech from 'The Devil Wears Prada': 'But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.' Regardless of their immediate responsibility towards the label, is it not a designer's duty, as a figure-head in a creative industry as all-encompassing as fashion, to inspire all women - not just the exclusive few who can afford their items?
I guess what i'm trying to say is that although it has been suggested that the industry needs to move to secure some sort of stable ground in terms of copywriting, and that a lack of structured copyright protection leads to a lack of innovation, i feel that the fashion industry is never more exciting then when it refers back to its heritage, and that the high-street is nothing but a natural progression from the runway. Those that don't recognize that the camel colour overcoat they're buying has been inspired by the strength of the likes of Chloe's runway, don't care. And if they don't care about that, then they'll care even less that there isn't copywriting protection in the industry.
Really, the answer to whether copyright protection is a positive or a negative thing all boils down to if you agree with the courts sentiment, as mentioned in my introductory sentence: Long ago, the courts ruled that clothes were too utilitarian to allow for copyright protection. Problems here lie with the fact that by distinguishing clothing as 'too utilitarian', one undermines its quality as art. So really, our focus should be on whether or not fashion is art?
Posts
