RSS
Twitter
Is It Copyright Infringement On Fashion Design To Post Photos From A Fashion Show Online?
from the certainly-hope-not dept
For many years, we've discussed how the fashion industry is a great example of an industry that is more innovative, more prolific and more dynamic due to the lack of intellectual property protection. In fact studies have repeatedly shown that it's the very lack of copyright over clothing designs that has made the overall industry so successful. It encourages continued innovation and adaptation, while the fact that there are knockoffs actually helps to increase the value of original authentic designs, while permeating design concepts throughout the fashion world.
However, that hasn't stopped designers from trying to gain copyright advantages over clothing designs, and one ongoing case suggests how ridiculous this concept could be. An online publication is being sued by two French fashion designers, not for creating knockoff clothing, but for daring to post photos online of the fashion designers clothing lines, which they demonstrated at a fashion show. The website sent its own photographers to the show (so it's not a case of them reposting someone else's photos). A French court sided with the designers (French design protectionism shows up again...), and now the case has moved to the US to see if the designers can collect.
The fact that the case has gotten as far as it has is pretty ridiculous. It's nearly impossible to see how posting photos you took yourself at a fashion show could violate someone else's copyright on clothing, but that's what we get in this world where too many people consider copyright something that provides full and total ownership of a concept, rather than a limited monopoly solely for the incentive to create. While the case right now hinges around the traditional four factors test for fair use, you have to wonder why we've never established a simpler test for copyright cases: if the creator knew the infringing action would occur, would they not have created the "content" in the first place? In this case, that seems laughable...
