Designers vs. Knock-offs

Apparently, according to the Chicago Tribune, clothing designers are taking action against manufacturers that make knock-offs. They want their designs to be protected by copyright laws in the same way that other intellectual property is.

Hmm. This is a tough one. As it currently stands, as long as a look alike doesn't have the designer's label on it, it is ok to reproduce the garment. I understand that a designer does not want to lose out on any sales that their creation might generate. Believe me, I get that.

But quotes like these make me wonder if these designers in particular get the point:

[Narcisc0] Rodriguez, who designed the dress that Carolyn Bessette wore at her 1996 wedding to John F. Kennedy Jr., said 8 million copies of that dress flooded the market.

'It's very harmful to my business,' he said.

I'm sure that all 8 million of those women would have paid the full designer price for that gown if they had not had more reasonable alternatives.

I read somewhere (Brenda Kinsel, maybe) that the fashion industry understands that their true money making potential does not lie with designer sales because they know very few consumers have $1500 for a blouse. Their true potential lies with the copies that are made and sold at Walmart, Target, and Dress Barn where the average woman goes to shop. The value of a designer is that they create a piece or two a season that normal women would be glad to be seen in. The designer that does this most often gets to be the most popular. That is why original designs cost so much (less sales of the actual design) and then the trickle down begins.

I was also under the impression that, at least initially somehow, the designer gets compensated for his or her work. Maybe through the licensing to upscale retail chains and boutiques. Therefore I do feel kind of sorry for one designer in the article.

Dana Foley, a designer with a chic Lower East Side boutique, said the retailer Forever 21 has copied her twice.

"We don't even know how they knocked off the last one because it's not even in stores yet," she said. "It cuts our legs out from underneath us in terms of building a brand, an identity."

Foley said her dresses cost $300 to $400, while the Forever 21 version sells for $29.99.

Yet, I repeat that more women have $29.99 to spend on a dress than have $300-400. I suspect this is whyt he laws are written the way they are.

But, the real outcome of this whole debate will lie not with the designers but with the manufacturers/retailers. If they believe that knock-offs ruin their business, intellectual property rights will be upheld. . . . but it won't be the designers who get the benefit because contracts will immediately be written in a way that makes it impossible to mass produce garments unless all "rights" have been signed over to the manufacturer/retailer and they will claim the cash not the creator of the design.

Just ask the record companies and the musicians that write and sing the songs how that works.