"Let’s visualize for a moment a bunch of lawyers in court armed with all sorts of pictures of versions of this dress trying to arguing about the definition of ’substantially similar’ and whether or not it applies. “But they’re all wrap dresses!” “But the new Halston is not a ‘wrap’ dress!” “But this one is short!” “But this one is plaid!” (A copyright lawyer for the fashion industry pointed out to me with the smug superiority that only a lawyer can have that this phrase is what ‘clarified’ this proposed law and made it viable.)
Where do we draw the line? And given that fashion, by definition, is such a rapidly expanding, moving, morphing target, this line will have to be drawn over and over again, for each trial. Since human female bodies, with their two legs, two arms, two breasts and a torso are pretty ’substantially similar’, take a look at the slopers in basic patternmaking texts and note the similarity of those. What makes a design truly superior to the knock off are the subtle differences in proportion and fit painstakingly created by shaving or adding those 1/4 inch here and 1/8 inch there. When you take printed fabric design out of the equation (currently the only thing protected under the copyright law and where my lawyer friend makes her living) and compare the flat pattern of a designer piece to the crummy autoCAD generated knock off in Forever 21, any substantial similarities on a dress form devolve into confusing technical nuance. This, my friends, is no territory for lawyers."
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment