Robin Givhan, fashion writer for the Washington Post, covers an interesting turn of events in fashion - the formulation of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.
Givhan reports:
The end may be near for easy access to cheap, unauthorized knockoffs of designer clothes. Capitol Hill has taken up the cause of fashion.
New York Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer -- in a dark suit, red tie and pale blue shirt -- and Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- in a dark suit, red tie and white shirt -- took the stage Wednesday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, along with designers Narciso Rodriguez, Nicole Miller, Richard Lambertson and others, to champion the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.
[...]
For designers, knockoffs have always been an aggravation. They cut into sales, tarnish a brand's luster and knock the wind out of young designers trying to establish their identity in the marketplace.
But seeking out a bargain basement version of a designer frock has always been considered a frugal shopper's right. Perusing the wares of street vendors for a fake Marc Jacobs or Kate Spade bag is part of the tourist experience in New York. And scouring department stores for the prom version of a one-of-a-kind Oscar gown has become a seasonal tradition.
Back in the days when the world moved at a slower pace, the impact of knockoffs was more modest. There was more lag time before high-end designs trickled down to the world of copies, homages and send-ups. By the time they did, designers had reaped whatever profits they could from their original work and had moved on to the next trend. Hoi polloi were welcome to the season-old designs. Besides, the masses were never going to spend a thousand dollars on a designer day dress or a handbag.
Now, the Internet gives knockoff artists nearly instant access to designers' most recent work -- long before it ever reaches stores. Super-fast and cheap manufacturing in places such as China make design piracy especially efficient and lucrative. And now that designers themselves are launching their own less expensive lines and licensing their names to mass merchants, their customers are no longer limited to those with vast sums of disposable income. They are looking to appeal to everyone: Bergdorf customers to Kohl's shoppers. Imitation is no longer flattering; it's a direct assault on a designer's bottom line.
Hmm...I'm kind of torn on this issue.
On one hand, I understand and sympathize with designers. I mean, after creating a wonderful design rife with personal touches, it would be gut-wrenching to walk into a knockoff imporium and see my dress hanging there. And some things are blatant copyright infrigement.
However, as a budget concious shopper, I am a bit worried about the implications of this band. I rely on stores like H & M and Forever 21 to give me fashionable wardrobe updates for under $100 - if they are forced out of business by a wave of lawsuits (like the ones currently leveled at Forever 21) what would be their replacement?
While Target has the right idea about designer tie ins (getting expensive designers to do a low end line for their stores), I feel like someone has to draw a line about claiming artistic rights - after all, a sheath dress is a sheath dress...so I worry about classic designs being staked out as a "classic design."
I know I am not trying to live in a world devoid of cheap hobo bags!
Labels: fashion, washington post
