Running Head: EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 1

Effects of Fashion Piracy: Young Designers Need Protection

Flora Fei

University of California, Berkeley

College Writing R1A

EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 2

Effects of Fashion Piracy: Designers Need Protection

Piracy, copying the designs of garments, has become normal in the fashion industry.

People can see cheap knockoffs of high-end designs in fast-fashion shops like Forever 21,

Zara, H&M and department stores like Macy and Bloomingdales. Just like in the music or

literature industry, intellectual property (IP) law is supposed to protect designers’ creations.

However, IP law in fashion provides limited protection: just trademarks and logos instead of

designs for the reason that the American government classifies clothing as a functional object

like a toothbrush, or ladder. In other words, because of the particularity of clothing, fashion

piracy is legal in the fashion industry. Piracy brings benefits for the big businesses that sell

pirated clothes and the consumers that buy them. By contrast, young designers need better

approaches to protect their creative ideas and profits for the reason that fashion, an industry

larger than that of movies, music and literature combined, will collapse without them.

The development of technology in recent years has only increased the possibility of

fashion piracy, leading to a calamity in the industry. Fashion shows are published online, thus

providing convenience for other people to copy the latest high-end looks more easily and

quickly. Take the example of Seema Anand (Wilson, 2007), a copycat designer with her own

fashion company. Ms. Anand’s works are exclusively inspired by other designers. She sends

photographs of clothing she sees online to her factories in India. Then the factories produce

knockoffs with cheaper materials so quickly that they are often released before the original

versions. In the end, Ms. Anand sends clothes with brand labels to stores like Forever 21 and

ultimately earns more than 20 million dollars every year. Such huge profits attract not just

copycat designers but retailers to become involved in the industry of piracy. Even big
EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 3

businesses with high-end reputations like Bloomingdales and Macy’s are allured.

Not only fashion retailers and companies like Ms. Anand’s, but also consumers benefit

from piracy, as they get designer looks without the high-end price tag. Simply put, knockoffs

in fast-fashion shops like Zara and H&M are more affordable. Some people comment that

clothes in retail shops even have better quality than those in high-end companies, so it is

unnecessary to spend heavily for a pair of jeans. As Siovhan McGearey, age 16 from London

said, “Some people don’t want to spend $300 on a pair of jeans just because of the

name…They may look nice, but why pay $300 when you can go down the street to Forever

21 and get jeans that are $30 that look exactly the same?” (Wilson, 2007) In addition, when

the market is full of knockoffs with similar styles, they help establish the current trend in

fashion. As a result, to keep up with the trend, consumers will buy the clothes (Wilson, 2007).

And this will also benefit the businesses who keep sales high and earn money.

In short, piracy benefits consumers and businesses. However, young designers will lose

incentive to push the industry forward if their works are continuously pirated. Copiers

disrespect the work of designers without any consequence. For example, Narciso Rodriguez

worked on the seaming in a dress since college and designed a beautiful wedding dress for his

friend Carolyn Bessette, but all the efforts were ruined by copiers who sold eight million

knockoffs (Paul, n.d.). Rodriguez gained nothing from the big sales of his dress design: he

only sold 45 copies of it. This example shows how piracy ruins designers’ careers, especially

young and upcoming designers like Marc Bouwer and Jason Wu, whose designs were also

copied and who gained nothing from it. Young designers are easily targeted by large

corporations because they lack brand awareness, which means their clothing designs are not
EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 4

easily recognizable like the work of a famous designer. Moreover, they are unlikely to sue

copycats because it is expensive to hire lawyers, and they may not even have enough money

for supplies and rent.

As a result, young designers are calling for law protection. They tried the Innovative

Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA), a piece of Congressional legislation,

but it didn’t work. The law was difficult to apply, because IDPPPA’s definition of the

standard of copying in the fashion industry was vague: “Clothes substantially identical in

overall appearance,” (Wade, 2011) In other words, there was no sufficient legal standard of

“substantially identical.” Therefore, copied clothes and ‘inspired garments’ cannot be

distinguished. In this way, the problem continues for young designers, and only gets worse

when the Internet helps to spread their creativity.

Clearly, the fashion industry should come up with better methods to solve the

problem of protecting young designers. As mentioned before, new designers do not have

brand recognition. When a design is copied from established designers, buyers will not know

which is the original work (Wade, 2011). However, a collective mark is a way to protect

emerging designers. Just like farmers who follow certain standards can label their food

“organic,” designers only need to put a term like “original design” or “slow fashion” on their

labels to show the innovation and standards of their work. In this way, young designers will

not be suppressed by knockoffs. By extension, just as consumers can buy regular or organic

produce, they can differentiate original designs from knockoffs and the labels give people a

reason to buy from original designers. Aside from collective marks, cooperation with retail

stores is also a means of protection for young designers. Designers can choose to make
EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 5

connections with knockoff companies and help to design clothes with their styles at lower

prices in return for a share of the profits. For instance, Thakoon and Samantha Ronson are in

partnership with Target and Khols (Paul, n.d.) to produce “cheap” version of their original

designs. Both designers and businesses can profit from this cooperation. What’s more,

consumers can go to stores like Target and get a designer name for a low price. With

collective marks and collaboration, young designers can earn fame and money at the same

time.

In sum, to keep the fashion industry profitable, young designers need protection

from piracy. Copying the designs of clothes is legitimate under current laws, and the

American government does not seem interested in providing protection to young designers.

Although piracy enables customers to have various options with reasonable prices, and fast

fashion companies earn profits through selling knockoffs, people should also put the focus on

designers and care about their rights. With appropriate protections such as collective marks

and cooperation with companies, designers will benefit from fashion piracy as well.
EFFECTS OF FASHION PIRACY 6

References

Blakley, J. (2010, April). Lessons from Fashion’s Free Culture. TED. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture#t-

910300

Paul, J. (n.d.). The “Piracy Paradox” is So Last Year: Why the Design Piracy Prohibition Act

is the New Black. bCourses. Retrieved from

https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1469778/assignments/7862814

Wade, M. (2011). The Sartorial Dilemma of Knockoffs: Protecting Moral Rights without

Disturbing the Fashion Dynamic. bCourses. Retrieved from

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Wade_MLR.pdf

Wilson, E. (2007, September 4). Before Models Can Turn Around, Knockoffs Fly. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html