Times may get a little tougher for quick-to-market fashion designers this January. Under a new Congress, legislation on unethical practices in the fashion industry might get a second wind, and plagiarists have every reason to be shivering in their knockoff Lanvin boots.
Last year, Senator Charles Schumer (D—N.Y.)—yes, the same senator trying to ban our beloved Four Loko!—proposed legislation aimed at stopping fashion plagiarism. The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act will make it illegal to copy the work of another designer for three years after the design goes public.
Case-in-point of Shumer’s argument is Chelsea Clinton’s wedding dress. Her July wedding created a media frenzy, and newly-engaged women across the country saw pictures of her stunning Vera Wang gown and moaned, “I have to have that dress!” Unfortunately, unless those women or their hubbies-to-be work at an international hedge fund or at the private equity group that just bought out Burger King in a multi-billion dollar deal, that gown is going to be a little out of their price range.
The solution to the Paper Bag Princess nightmare? Companies like ABS have already copied the dress stitch-for-stitch with less expensive materials and will sell it for a fraction of Vera’s price. This leaves Vera pissed as hell because she might be losing sales to brides-to-be who can foot the bill. The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Act would block production of knock-offs for three years to protect sales until they safely go out of style. “Safely,” because who wants to wear Chelsea’s dress from three years ago when Michelle Obama is attending state dinners in newer, fresher ensembles?
The idea certainly has its merits. Protecting the creative work of fashion houses allows them to recoup production costs, establish their brand, and receive recognition for their design. Haute couture designers also claim that their innovation will come to a screeching halt unless their hard work and creativity are protected.
That argument, however, is as nonsensical as saying, “He’s copying my exam, so I’m just going to stop filling in the answers.” In reality, the drawbacks of the bill outweigh the benefits by a lot. For one, the fashion industry will struggle financially if Congress passes this bill. Lesser designers will be unable to generate desirable new looks every season, and sales will plummet.
Companies like H&M and Zara that deliver fresh fads to fashion laypeople at affordable prices would go out of business if their runway-to-rack business model were ruled illegal. And if you think that $30 Urban Outfitters tank top already oversteps your budget, wait until you add a licensing fee.
Creativity is the son of imitation. Think about music mash-ups (Girl Talk is H&M in this scenario)—a lot of contemporary art is just a reworking of something you’ve seen (or heard) before. We wouldn’t have Ray Charles’ “What I’d Say” if there were a copyright on the twelve-bar blues.
The United States is currently the undisputed fashion leader of the world. So why change now? The logic behind Schumer’s bill doesn’t add up, but that doesn’t mean it won’t pass. In the meantime, I’ll be loading up on cheap H&M knockoffs and chugging Four Lokos.
Rip off Keenan’s clothing at ktimko@georgetownvoice.com
