Would Fashion Copyright Have Made Kate Middleton's Knockoff Wedding Dress Illegal?

from the oops dept

Right after the big royal wedding a few months back, Susan Scafidi, the law professor who is one of the leading supporters of putting in place a totally unnecessary and economically damaging "fashion copyright," used the wedding to support her arguments for fashion copyright. She suggested how unfortunate it would be that Kate Middleton's wedding dress would now be knocked off and used by other brides. It seems the "Kate Middleton's dress" example is popular among supporters of fashion copyright. In the NY Times, Steven Kolb, director of the Council for Fashion Designers of America (the main organization pushing for this bill), described Kate Middleton's wedding dress as the perfect example of what fashion copyright could protect:
Mr. Kolb said that Kate Middleton’s wedding dress would probably be a good example
Interesting. Except... as Johanna Blakley points out, it turns out that Kate Middleton's dress... was a knockoff itself!
See the dress on the right? That's Kate Middleton in her dress. On the left? That's Isabella Orsini, goddaughter of the Italian Prime Minister, marrying Belgian Prince Edouardo de Ligne... two years ago. The dresses were made by different designers. Orsini's by Gerald Watelet, Middleton's by Sarah Burton. As Blakley notes:
We’d all like to think that we can recognize newness and originality when we see it, but it’s actually quite hard to do. Even Steven Kolb, who is completely immersed in the fashion world, had trouble choosing a good example of a dress that is different from all designs that have preceded it.
And, of course, there's really nothing new under the sun in many of these cases. For example, some people have pointed out that both dresses appear quite similar to the dress worn at another famous royal wedding... over fifty years ago. See the photo below of Grace Kelly marrying the Prince of Monaco:


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 5:45am

    The basis for new culture is, in fact, knockoff dresses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:29am

    Even an untalented eye can see significant differences in the two dresses, from the type of material (left is a cream "smooth" material, right is a more form fitting, stretch style white), to the cut, to the difference between a smooth dress and a pleated.

    It is very similar to http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/02490115124/is-there-difference-between-inspiration-copyin g.shtml - vague similarities are not the point of any rights protection system, even if some think it might be.

    Perhaps Mike you can be a little more consistant. If you are going to mock the photographer, why not mock the guy who claims these two dresses are the same? Oh, wait, I know, because you are trying to make an anti-copyright point here. Got it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    Re:

    And if you look at the pictures just right, they're all wearing the same earrings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re:

    And if you play them backwards, you can hear messages from Satan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Cowardly Anon, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:42am

    "She suggested how unfortunate it would be that Kate Middleton's wedding dress would now be knocked off and used by other brides."

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would that be unfortunate? The value and prestige of the dress had nothing to do with the designer or even the design, and everything to do with who wore it.

    She is an idol and someone people wish to be closer to. If a woman wanted to wear a similar dress to the one that Kate wore, how would that harm anyone?

    It wouldn't harm the designer, as I'm betting it wouldn't harm the original designer. He was probably paid handsomely for that dress, not to mention all the press coverage and free advertisement he got from being the dress designer for the royal wedding.

    It wouldn't harm Kate, as her day is done. Why should it matter if women around the world fell in love with her dress and wanted to feel even more like a princess on their wedding day by wearing a dress similar to the one she wore?

    It wouldn't harm consumers, as they KNOW they aren't getting Kate's wedding dress. And as wedding dresses are already inflated in value, I don't see how buying a dress that looks like the one form the royal wedding would drive the price up too much higher, or if the women would even care if it was.

    It wouldn't harm the fashion industry, because as long as people are willing to buy the industry will keep going forward. In fact, if women do want a knock off Kate dress, then it could help the industry by creating revenue streams for new designers.

    So, I guess it boils down to Susan Scafidi using sentiment for a moment that the world shared as a shameless plug to push her own agenda.

    To Susan Scafidi, I have one thing to say: Facts or GTFO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re:

    If you unfocus your eyes just right, you can also see a sailboat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Binary Adder (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:43am

    Re:

    Well, does it mean that if I print a book on different kind of paper, different font and colour, is it enough to not to infringe on the original? Who will decide where is the boundary?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dragos (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:44am

    Fashion copyright is not enough!

    I would suggest something similar to the 'public performance tax', so we should pay something to the designers every time we wear their creations in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    chaitanya k, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:46am

    time-traveller?

    actually those are all the same woman! she's an immortal who likes to appear in public every so often and get married in the same dress.

    sometimes she dies her hair.

    she maybe a vampire or highlander.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:51am

    Re: Re:

    Whoever has the most lawyers and bought politicians of course! It's a perfect, self regulating system. Dont mess with it.

    Seriously.

    Or else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:51am

    Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    You really MUST change your "About" page. It's so STALE and FRUMPY, doesn't even hint at the EXCITING WORLD OF FASHION:
    "the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re:

    No, you have it backwards. What is being suggested is that if two different books are printed to be the same size, with the same color on the cover, and having the same number of pages (but are completely different in content), would that be violating copyright?

    The two dresses have some common features, in very general terms, but even an untrained eye can clearly see major differences. Further, the Grace Kelly dress is nothing like it at all, except perhaps for the use of lace for sleeves. Even then, it's a reach.

    The two dresses are two blues songs. They are similar in nature and general tone, but one is singing about losing his lady and the other one is singing about losing his job. You can find similarities if you work hard (similar to Mike's other post), but the differences are very clear as well.

    Too bad Mike can't seem to decide which side of the debate he wants to be on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:57am

    Re:

    Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

    The point is that someone thought they were similar. The validity of the claims of similarity is completely irrelevant because, if there were a fashion copyright, the validity would be irrelevant. If someone says they're similar and that someone is the copyright holder you give in to whatever they demand or you go to court regardless of the validity. That is the point being illustrated here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nah, that's a horse. WITH DIAMONDS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    "legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow"

    I think this post falls in that category. You are so desperate to troll...it is sad, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Mark, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nah, it's a schooner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:09am

    Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    Fail in reading comprehension. "Legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow": yes, that's what this article is about. Mike is arguing that a fashion copyright would affect innovation and growth.
    If you think Mike has gone off the deep end and is somehow not allowed talk about these kinds of things, then STFU, GTFO, and start your own damned blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:10am

    Fashion Trolls

    I would love nothing more for this organization to get this expansion of copyright. It's not going to stop the knockoffs of course, any more than the RIAA or MPAA is able to stop infringement of their stuff. What it will start though, is Fashion Trolls. People (well lawyers) will buy up old designs (or just pay college students to make them) and then start suing all the major companies for anything that remotely looks like a design they own. It's not like you have to actually sell anything, just produce one and you've got the copyright. Soon everyone will have to wear the same plain clothes to prevent themselves from infringing. It'll be just like Star Trek.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    First thing I thought of when I saw Middleton's dress was Grace Kelly's (thanks for providing the pic, Mike).

    If fashion copyright had existed as regular copyright does today, neither Middleton nor Orsini (nor countless other brides, c'mon, this is not exactly a bold new design here), would have any choice about their dresses: the design would be locked up in damn near perpetual copyright and any attendant lawsuits whether they were "infringing" or not.

    Copyright, as it stands and is abused today, will not help designers at all, it will tie their hands and squash their expression with totally unnecessary litigation. It baffles me why such a vibrant and creative industry would want to impose those shackles upon itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Alien Bard, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright isn't about the differences, it's about the similarities. Under current trends all it takes to create a case are two or more similarities. The differences are immaterial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And people like you are the first to scream "DERIVATIVE WORK!" whenever someone creates something even remotely like anything else.

    You're not fooling anyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:13am

    Re: Fashion Trolls

    Shiny silver suits and boots for everyone!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Andrew (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:23am

    Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!

    I like it! And while we're here, why not start licensing clothes instead of selling them? Then the manufacturer could prevent you from wearing last season's clothes ever again, or maybe charge you 20% more if you had the gall to wear that smart business skirt on a night out.

    Instituting region restrictions could also be a lot of fun and, if governments got involved in enforcing these things, that trip through security could leave you naked not just for the trip through the body scanners, but for the whole flight. I can hardly wait.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:23am

    Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    NotMyRealName (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:32am

    Re: Fashion Trolls

    Nope, I'm copyrighting t-shirts and jeans - prior art be damned. Maybe I can wring some lucrative settlements out of the big players before before they realize what happened in the glut of coming lawsuits.
    And just to show my heart is in the right place, I'll start buying t.v. seasons and movies again once I'm absurdly rich ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    WHEN DO I GET TO SEE THE SAIL-BOAT!?!?!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re:

    >>Who will decide where is the boundary?

    And this is exactly the problem. Where is the boundary? Does Isabella's designer get to claim all dresses with a split in the bodice? What if the split in Kate's dress is 9cm long, and Isabella's is only 8? If the original dress used thin silk, is it the same design if the new dress uses lace or sheer cotton? How far off from pure white does the the dress need to be? What if Isabella's designer claimed copyright, and someone discovered an even older dress that was very similar?

    IP holders almost always try to claim the broadest possible rights. Proponents of the fashion copyright law claim that the proposed law is specific, but if you try to apply the currently proposed law to this situation (assuming copyright law had covered Isabella's dress) then it is clear that the law still leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The only possible outcome is a lot of lawsuits with judges and juries trying to decide whether one neckline is too similar to another. No one wins except the lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    About the time the credits roll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:00am

    Re:

    Is that all it takes to get around this fashion copyright? Who wants to go into business with me remaking famous wedding dresses?

    We can make all the ones that are originally cream into a whiter shade and the white ones cream. Also we will move the neckline down or up 1 inch.

    Thank god these fashion copyright laws are so open.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    Re: Re: Fashion Trolls

    sorry too late:

    patent 6002-607
    for "pants made primarily of denim"

    ^ look at me innovate

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!

    Don't forget hand-me-downs - a child outgrows an outfit and their parents want a younger sibling to wear it? Sorry, that's not allowed, unless they paid the 45% site license fee when they bought it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What you need is a fatty-boom-batty blunt! And I guarantee you'll be seeing a sailboat, an ocean, and maybe even some of those big-tittied mermaids doing some of that lesbian shit!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re:

    What all of you miss is even if you turn fashion copyright on tomorrow morning, all of this stuff is already in the public domain. The problem resolves itself nicely, all without having to trash the rest of the copyright system to avoid it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:22am

    Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    No fail at all. What Mike doesn't happen to mention is that everything that has been made before whatever point they would activate copyright on clothes would be the public domain, and pretty much everything has already been done, from stitching types to design features.

    A company would have to be highly innovative to come up with something that is entirely new. If it is a process (say a way to stitch invisibly backwards with a twist) it wouldn't be copyright but rather an issue for patent. So we are only talking appearance here, and most of the appearance has already happened in other ways.

    Basically, Mike is creating the old "tempest in a teapot" thing, and ignoring the reality of a huge, huge, huge public domain in clothes design that would pretty much make it impossible for anyone not to hit prior art. But that wouldn't be a very good story for Techdirt, would it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Public domain? isnt that the thing disney owns?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    so if its impossible for almost anything to fall under this fashion copyright and the few things that do will be better covered by patent, why do we need it? They are saying its to copyright things like Kate's dress but if there is so much prior art that it would be un-copyrightable why the fuck are we making the law?

    Oh because big name designers can sue the shit out of anyone who comes up with anything remotely similar that is more popular, because despite prior art if you don't have a few thousand grand laying around to defend yourself in court than it doesn't fucking matter you lose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Fashion Trolls

    Even better, a more basic feature: fabric pouches attached to clothing through slits to provide access to stored items.

    Don't bother, "Intellectual Ventures" is already working on this one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    I am sure that some future would could fall under a fashion copyright, but they would have to be truly new and innovative, not just a duplcation of a past style or a merging of two past works.

    They could likely very narrowly copyright Kate's dress, but a similar dress with even a slightly lower neckline might not be the same dress. The copyright would likely apply only to exact duplication.

    "Remotely similar" wouldn't work, because all the remotely similar stuff has already been done. Prior art and all that, they can easily say they are copying this "public domain dress" without issue.

    I don't even think that much of it would get near a court, because of how few new designs are actually truly new and not a riff off a past design.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Fashion copyright is not enough!

    Ew, clothing DRM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    They could likely very narrowly copyright Kate's dress, but a similar dress with even a slightly lower neckline might not be the same dress. The copyright would likely apply only to exact duplication.

    You're still missing it. You can sit there and write that, but if it was you getting sued, you would have to prove your case in court. That's extremely expensive, even if you're right.

    I don't even think that much of it would get near a court

    Then you haven't been paying attention to copyright issues, or you're stupid, or you're lying. Introduce copyright, and these issues will go to court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    el_porko (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 10:10am

    Kate Middleton's dress is almost an exact copy of my wife's wedding dress.

    I'm going to have to sue Google for that!

    Actually I thought it was a reasonbly common style, and ther are millions and millions of wedding dresses out there, how could you not design a dress that is similar to others?

    P.S. I've trademarked the colour "white" and the words "wedding dress" so you owe me some money Mike!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Scott (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    If only every bride could look like Grace Kelly. She was truly the most beautiful bride. Stunning in every way

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Mel (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So Apple's lawsuit with Samsung is a reach since their content is different. We'll see how important the courts think having a similar appearance (both do have rounded corners).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Again, you fail here for a couple of reason:

    1st, the Kelly dress and the other two are not particularly similar at all, except for the use of lace sleeves. The Kelly dress most significantly features horizontal cloth orientation over the stomach area, which is very different from the other two. Also, the other two are using the lace sleevs and shoulders are support to create a plunging neckline, where the Kelly dress is for all intents a strapless dress with lace decorations. There are some similarities, in the same manner that there are similarities between blues songs. But they aren't the same song.

    2nd, you assume that the copyright holder would have no interest in licensing out their designs. One of the keys of copyright (and patent for that matter) is that the only time it turns into money is if you use it or license it. Just holding it up isn't really in anyone's interest.

    Basically, the Kelly dress would not be a copyright that the other dresses would violate, and in extremist, there is no reason why they wouldn't license the design anyway.

    So sorry, nothing would be "locked up", except perhaps your Techdirt muddled view of copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

    AnonFail

    No, you fail. All wedding dresses look the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Mel (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

    did you say similar...

    Are not all things and ideals similar or progressions from those that came before. Is there really any totally and completely original thought or ideals? I don't think so, don't they all build off of previous ideals that themselves were evolved from those previous to them?

    So nothing is truly original, these claimants were just the first to claim, patent or copyright it. Which gives them the ability to exploit it. It's just a matter of time before the air we breath is taxed or licensed to us. Greed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Gosh, Mike, another VITAL FASHION QUESTION!

    "...pretty much everything has already been done..."

    Stupidest...
    Statement...
    Ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2011 @ 6:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The key to copyright as it is supposed to be used is that it turns into money only if it is used.

    The key to copyright as it is actually used is that it turns into money if someone else uses it and they can be sued for infringment. Suing for infringement is easier if it is locked up and no one realizes that the copyright exists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    One of the keys of copyright (and patent for that matter) is that the only time it turns into money is if you use it or license it. Just holding it up isn't really in anyone's interest.

    Yet time and again, we see copyright holders sue rather than license. Why do you ignore this, or assume it would be different with clothing?

    Basically, the Kelly dress would not be a copyright that the other dresses would violate

    Time and again, we see copyright holders stretch interpretations of similarity, copying, fair use, and idea vs. expression. Why do you ignore this, or assume it would be different with clothing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Jul 27th, 2011 @ 12:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No one wins except the lawyers

    And the juries who get paid time off work to look at attractive women with plunging necklines ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    chris, Jul 27th, 2011 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're assuming the copyright holders are acting rationally. In practice, we have situations where authors can't get copies of their own books. Also large businesses only bother licensing to other large businesses. Small local dressmakers would be forced out of work, but maybe you are okay with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 27th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Re: AnonFail

    That's kinda what I think, personally. I would never give wedding dresses 2 hoots of a glance to tell if they are different or not, nor would I care to.

    They are white, with lace, and sometimes shiny objects.

    Besides, IF I were ever to remarry, I would want an LCD covered dress that could stream w/e content I wanted to it during the wedding!

    Patent Infringement on Multiple Levels!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    chris, Jul 27th, 2011 @ 9:00am

    For copyrighted materials, the only value lies in their creative aspect and the cost of replication is virtually zero. Things like clothing and food have inherent value other than their creative aspects. People will still buy them even if they aren't innovative. No incentive is needed to produce them. Therefore things like fashion and food copyright don't make sense.

    Unlike a supply of new books, music and movies, I doubt most people would consider a supply of creative clothing important to society. It amounts to planned obsolescence, which generates an amount of waste matched by few other industries today. Also, once you start placing more value on the creative aspects of clothing, the other aspects such as construction go to crap, which they have. Today's clothing is cheaply made and falls apart quickly. That's okay because you are expected to continually re-buy everything in order to stay "in fashion".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: AnonFail

    That's a sweet idea. You might be able to fun part of your wedding through adverts on the dress. That's prime real estate!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Hattie Tinfoil, Aug 3rd, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Here's a good post on Fashion Copyright

    Great post:

    What do fashion houses expect to get from fashion copyright?
    http://badculture.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/what-do-fashion-houses-expect-to-get-from-fas hion-copyright/

    Essentially, fashion copyright will help one group increase revenues - LAWYERS

    HT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    andy (profile), Nov 13th, 2011 @ 11:26am

    fashion copyright

    Surely it is very difficult to copyright something such as the design as a dress because as is rightly mentioned, any dress must surely be a copy from another or a number of others from all the brides in the past.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Carol Clement, Dec 9th, 2012 @ 6:25pm

    beautiful wedding dress

    My friend who works as a Brisbane wedding photographer noticed this too. During the royal couple’s ceremony he kept on telling me that he saw that dress before. I just saw this website and told my friend about this. So he was right but I couldn’t care less because both brides look gorgeous. It’s the designers fault and it can be a big problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This