<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Copyright protection for fashion designs reintroduced in Congress</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/</link>
	<description>Fashion, beauty, style and shopping</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:34:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: meme</title>
		<link>http://www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/#comment-48934</link>
		<dc:creator>meme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 20:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shopplr.com/?p=350#comment-48934</guid>
		<description>I absolutely agree with Esme.  Are we kidding ourselves to think that there are any exact replicas of fashion?  There are too many factors that go into making a garment.  I would think that copyrighting fabric designs and actual patterns and trademarking logos would be enough.  Am I missing the point?

I am a big fan of independent everything: designers, stores, movie directors, etc.  I feel that you limit creativity when everyone tries to be mainstream.  

Does anyone know what the result was?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I absolutely agree with Esme.  Are we kidding ourselves to think that there are any exact replicas of fashion?  There are too many factors that go into making a garment.  I would think that copyrighting fabric designs and actual patterns and trademarking logos would be enough.  Am I missing the point?</p>
<p>I am a big fan of independent everything: designers, stores, movie directors, etc.  I feel that you limit creativity when everyone tries to be mainstream.  </p>
<p>Does anyone know what the result was?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: claire</title>
		<link>http://www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/#comment-372</link>
		<dc:creator>claire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shopplr.com/?p=350#comment-372</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been researching and blogging this issue (http://collectiveselection.com) and this is the most concise and well written explanation of the issue I&#039;ve seen yet. I&#039;ll be linking and block quoting this tonight. 

@Sooz: please understand that if this law is passed it will not confer a magical blanket of copyright protection by its mere existence. It will protect those who can pay for teams of lawyers to spend hours and hours of time (at $250+ and hour...) to make a case. And who is going to make the call to what is &#039;closely and substantially similar in overall visual appearance&#039;? Isn&#039;t that, like, 90% of the garments in a mall in a given time? Who decides what&#039;s a trend and what&#039;s a copy? A jury of John Q. Public? 

The big design houses have teams of junior designers who regularly and systematically source both vintage clothing *and* their competitors designs to keep a stock of &#039;inspiration&#039; on hand. Sometimes they tweak and recombine the elements in our common vocabulary... and often they copy vintage outright. 

But if this law passed what you&#039;ll see are the big companies making a stake to &#039;claim&#039; these common design elements as their own, and a climate of legal intimidation where up and coming designers that pose a threat to the establishment&#039;s market share are sued just for the sake of creating enough of a legal and financial headache to make them cease and desist. Don&#039;t believe me? Check out the NY Times article on Levi&#039;s going after indie premium denim that we all know is trying to be anything but Levi&#039;s. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/business/29jeans.html?_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=levis%20sues%20trademark&amp;st=cse</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been researching and blogging this issue (<a href="http://collectiveselection.com" rel="nofollow">http://collectiveselection.com</a>) and this is the most concise and well written explanation of the issue I&#8217;ve seen yet. I&#8217;ll be linking and block quoting this tonight. </p>
<p>@Sooz: please understand that if this law is passed it will not confer a magical blanket of copyright protection by its mere existence. It will protect those who can pay for teams of lawyers to spend hours and hours of time (at $250+ and hour&#8230;) to make a case. And who is going to make the call to what is &#8216;closely and substantially similar in overall visual appearance&#8217;? Isn&#8217;t that, like, 90% of the garments in a mall in a given time? Who decides what&#8217;s a trend and what&#8217;s a copy? A jury of John Q. Public? </p>
<p>The big design houses have teams of junior designers who regularly and systematically source both vintage clothing *and* their competitors designs to keep a stock of &#8216;inspiration&#8217; on hand. Sometimes they tweak and recombine the elements in our common vocabulary&#8230; and often they copy vintage outright. </p>
<p>But if this law passed what you&#8217;ll see are the big companies making a stake to &#8216;claim&#8217; these common design elements as their own, and a climate of legal intimidation where up and coming designers that pose a threat to the establishment&#8217;s market share are sued just for the sake of creating enough of a legal and financial headache to make them cease and desist. Don&#8217;t believe me? Check out the NY Times article on Levi&#8217;s going after indie premium denim that we all know is trying to be anything but Levi&#8217;s. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/business/29jeans.html?_r=1&#038;scp=1&#038;sq=levis%20sues%20trademark&#038;st=cse" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/business/29jeans.html?_r=1&#038;scp=1&#038;sq=levis%20sues%20trademark&#038;st=cse</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sooz</title>
		<link>http://www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/#comment-275</link>
		<dc:creator>Sooz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shopplr.com/?p=350#comment-275</guid>
		<description>Hey this article was recently shared with me by a friend and I wanted to sort of make clear that this isn&#039;t going after &quot;small designers&quot;.

&quot;Prohibits deeming a fashion design to have been copied from a protected design if it: (1) is original and not closely and substantially similar in overall visual appearance to a protected design; (2) merely reflects a trend; or (3) is the result of independent creation.&quot;

Just because something is influenced, doesn&#039;t make it a copy.  This amendment is protecting designers from counterfeiters and even for the most part store like forever 21.  Where you can get exact duplicated of designs, that are just made like crap :)  I know a lot of people are opposed to people buying knock off purses and shoes because it belittles the designer and the ridiculous amounts of money people spend on goods.  (I mean really who doesn&#039;t have a LV  or D&amp;B purse at this point?)

Right now when people sell knock offs, they are really just getting nailed on trademark infringement, when the designers should really be getting their credit as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey this article was recently shared with me by a friend and I wanted to sort of make clear that this isn&#8217;t going after &#8220;small designers&#8221;.</p>
<p>&#8220;Prohibits deeming a fashion design to have been copied from a protected design if it: (1) is original and not closely and substantially similar in overall visual appearance to a protected design; (2) merely reflects a trend; or (3) is the result of independent creation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just because something is influenced, doesn&#8217;t make it a copy.  This amendment is protecting designers from counterfeiters and even for the most part store like forever 21.  Where you can get exact duplicated of designs, that are just made like crap <img src='http://www.shopplr.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />   I know a lot of people are opposed to people buying knock off purses and shoes because it belittles the designer and the ridiculous amounts of money people spend on goods.  (I mean really who doesn&#8217;t have a LV  or D&amp;B purse at this point?)</p>
<p>Right now when people sell knock offs, they are really just getting nailed on trademark infringement, when the designers should really be getting their credit as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.shopplr.com/2009/07/copyright-protection-for-fashion-designs-reintroduced-in-congress/feed/ ) in 0.42775 seconds, on Feb 10th, 2012 at 3:23 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 10th, 2012 at 4:23 am UTC -->
