Davis Dykes

Adam Padgett
November 14, 2016
English 102 Research Paper
Whose style? The Effect of Copyright Laws on the Fashion Industry
In the 1980s, Don and Jin Chang, a South Korean immigrant couple opened their first clothing
store in downtown Los Angeles. A true american dream, they began by selling designs catering to the LA
Korean-American community, making a large profit that made it possible to expand their company by one
store every six months. By the 90s, their stores had become a mall staple in parts of the United States.
(Ferla) Today, the company has garnered up to 700 stores nationwide and an annual revenue of $4.4
billion, but they no longer produce flashy K-Pop trends. Rather, they focus on producing trendy clothing,
at affordable prices. The Changs are not designers, and their corporation, Forever 21, is not a fashion
house, but has somehow risen to the forefront of the Fashion Industry.
The Changs are not alone in profiting off of this fast fashion model. Stores across the globe,
such as, Zara, and H&M have become some of the biggest wholesalers of clothing and accessories in the
world. Their clientele, who are mostly young, pop cultured millennials, use these stores to acquire some
of the industries hottest trends and styles at minimal costs. This model sounds like an amazing
achievement for giving the general public a chance to be en vogue since they can now own fashion that
for generations were limited to the more elite. If a person cannot afford the new $3,000 handbag Kylie
Jenner was carrying, they could probably pick up one just like it at one of these stores, but at what point is
the resemblance of these high-end and fast fashion products a bit too uncanny?
In the western world, the idea of intellectual property has become an increasingly more pertinent
issue with the rise of technology. The music, film, and literary industries have been some of the most
vocal and regulated factions in the world, with stringent laws protecting the rights of people to profit off
of their own ideas. However, the Fashion Industry has not been so fortunate. In the United States, there
has yet to be any legislation enacted that protects the designs of fashion designers beyond that of logos
and trademarks. Giving stores such as Forever 21 free reign over profiting off the work of real designers.

The lack of copyright laws does not end with corporate appropriation. The counterfeit market has
committed an even greater infraction by creating exact replicas of pieces and passing them off as genuine
goods, not even attempting to bring the guise of reverent emulation. Counterfeits not only hurt the brand
which they are pulling from, but also hurt the countries where the transaction is made through loss of
taxes implemented. This has lead multiple countries, including the United States, to place counterfeiting
industries as one of the highest on their watch list. (Engizek) One of the most disturbing parts is that most
of these counterfeiting operations contribute to the black market and can have a monetary trickle down
effect into some bad business that the customer may be completely unaware of when making a purchase.
(Engizek)
When looking at the state of copyright law in the United States and the importance they play in
the other art forms, we can see that many steps have been taken to protect the rights of these artists. Why
then, has fashion, which many see as an art form, been neglected? Although too much heavy handedness
in piracy protection could be a bit stifling in an industry that relies on interplay, a call for better vigilance
through copyright protection in giving these designers their due is definitely warranted.
The first United State copyright laws were enacted in 1790 and included mainly literary works,
charts, and maps. (Roth) Music compositions were added in 1830, photographs in 1860, and works of art
including paintings and sculpture in 1871. (Tu) The twentieth century brought the protection of motion
pictures in 1912 and architecture in 1990. (Roth) The last major copyright overhaul took place with the
1976 Copyright Act, but still fashion was overlooked in this bill as well, only speaking of such works in
regard to art with utilitarian aspects. Since fashion is a useful article, it is exempt from the copyright
actions because of its use to cover the body. (Roth)
One of the contingents of court discussion in regards to intellectual property, is the interpretation
as fashion as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. (Roth) Ofcourse the use of pictures or graphics on
clothing is covered by copyright, but anything in the actual aesthetic design of the clothing is not.
Meaning tailored cuts, necklines, sleeve lengths, etc. are not covered. That leaves the only option of
clothing as sculptural. Sculpture as defined in the Oxford Dictionary is The art of making two- or threedimensional representative or abstract forms, especially by carving stone or wood or by casting metal or
plaster. The issue here is people do not consider fabric a medium for this.

It is difficult to give credit for intellectual property on a product that is utilitarian for consumers
that all have a basic shape, there is a difference between warranted similarities and exact plagiarism. To
combat this, designers have relied on branding, which has become even more pertinent through
globalization. Judith Roth mentions that trademark law helps to mark a brand that can be used legally and
exploited commercially to give credibility and familiarity with their product. Along these lines are the
laws of trade dress that protect an overarching visual aspects that may have become synonymous with a
brand, such as Tiffany & Cos use of tiffany blue boxes tied up with a white bow or a red soled
Christian Laboutin heel. Trade dress is not always full proof as it can be denied for greatly negatively
effecting the performance of any competitors. (Roth)
Branding continues to be a huge asset for fashion houses.

!
Work Cited

!ENGZEK, NL, and AHMET EKERKAYA. "Is The Price Only Motivation Source To Purchase
!

Counterfeit Luxury Products?." Journal Of Academic Research In Economics 7.1 (2015): 89-118.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Roth, Judith S., and David Jacoby. "Fashion, Copyright, And The Proposed Design Piracy Prohibition
Act." IP Litigator 15.6 (2009): 1-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.

Tan, Irene. "Knock It Off, Forever 21! The Fashion Industry's Battle Against Design Piracy." Journal Of
Law & Policy 18.2 (2010): 893-924. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.

!Tu, Kevin V. "Counterfeit Fashion: The Interplay Between Copyright And Trademark Law In Original

Fashion Designs And Designer Knockoffs." Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 18.2 (2010):
419-449. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.