Why isn’t the design of my dress, or bra, or blouse copyrighted? Is there a reason we have copy protection on music but not clothing? Why are there no lawsuits over jeans?
We live in a society which is populated by double standards and double takes. Take copyrights. Puhleeeeze.
The recording industry and the movie industry have legions of lawyers willing to sue the pants off grandmothers who don’t have computers because of copyright infringement.
But nobody from Nieman-Marcus sues Target for selling obvious knockoffs of expense clothing. Why the double standard?
According to WikiPedia, a Copyright is defined as:
Tell that to Mickey Mouse, whose lease on copyright life will go on forever. Even if my name is Ford, I can’t build an automobile and call it Ford, due to trademark laws. I can’t do a mouse cartoon and call it Mickey, either, that due to copyright laws.
WikiPedia goes on to say:
“Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the “form of material expression”. It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.”
Tell that to the author of “The Da Vinci Code.”
The record and movie industry love to sue those who make copies of their wares, and rightly so. But no such effort is undertaken in the fashion industry, where styles, parts of styles, are copied more than butts on a Xerox copier during the annual office party.
In fact, it has long been considered an open and accepted policy among fashion designers to copy pieces of the designs of others.
Why are there no lawsuits to stop the knockoffs?
Why doesn’t Levi’s have legions of lawyers on hand to bash the likes of Guess, Wrangler, Lee, and Calvin-Klein? Hey, jeans is jeans, right?
It’s one thing to stop teenagers from “copying” copyrighted music from the internet and storing such on their PCs, Macs, and iPods. It’s something else again to stop a designer from copying a color scheme, a fabric, a cut.
Songs you buy online and store on your iPod are also copy protected (to some degree), so how would you copy protect an original blouse design?
If the design I find at Target is somewhat original and not substantially similar in appearance to the original original design at Neiman-Marcus for five times the money, is that considered infringement? Who decides?
It’s a double standard. Those who can enforce, do. Those who can’t afford lawyers, don’t.
Ford is not a copyright, but a trademark. Mickey Mouse may well be covered under both copyright and trademark law.
A blouse could be protected under copyright as a work of expression. This was recently used to protect a sailboat, but I believe it was a case in England, not in the US.
Intellectual property law is far more complicated than you make it out to be.
Actually, copyright is just one part of intellectual property, not the whole ball of wax.
I don’t think Tera was making the issue to be simplistic as she has a valid point. There is a distinct “double standard” in some industries vs. others, particularly those she touched on.
Copyright law in the US was never intended to last forever, though US congress has continually extended Mickey Mouse’s lifespan, through legislation that protects the have’s, and diminishes the rights of the have-nots.
That’s why Disney still has Mickey.
I remember a few years ago when Apple sued a company for making a knock off, a PC version, of the original iMac.
That’s a trademark issue which was rather clear cut and Apple won.
The Da Vinci Code is a copyright issue, as Tera pointed out, a little less clear cut, but an issue which is likely to fall in favor of the defendant author.
It’s interesting that Levi Strouss didn’t protect “Levi’s” and why other clothing designers don’t protect their styles, certain aspects of their styles.
It’s ok to make a perfume that smells exactly like Chanel No. 5, but you can’t call it Chanel when you sell it.
It’s also important to note that Intellectual property laws were drawn up, for the most part, by lawyers protecting business interests, not people protecting their own interests.
“Fair use” became a huge issue with the Sony betamax VCR and fair use was established, though the record industry says “not.”
Most ideas are derivative, really new ideas are quite rare. It is interesting that an artist can copy an existing work of art, by hand, and as long as they put there own name on it it is quite permissible. One cannot make a photographic copy and print up posters and sell them if someone holds the rights to the work.
I think Tera’s observation on how these laws can seem arbitrary is valid.