Today I have decided to write about two things I love; fashion and IP law. The law of fashion is peculiar in that there isn't exactly a lot of "law" in fashion at all... I'm not talking fashion police here for those style faux pas, I'm talking legal protection through Intellectual Property rights over style and designs of "vogue" product. A great argument for Intellectual Property rights is that it encourages innovation. When we grant an exclusive right for a person to manufacture and sell his invention of x for 20 years there is primarily a two fold benefit; firstly, the invention is disclosed, allowing others to improve and develop on it and secondly; IP protection is beneficial as it is incentivising the inventor to also innovate, so once the 20 years have passed, a protection of some sorts may still exist on a newer invention. This is a typical scenario in "hard IP", but when we think about fashion, there is little IP protection. The paradox here is that if there is apparently no incentive through protecting innovation in fashion, why is fashion so innovative?
Johanna Blakley on her recent ted talk suggested innovation in the fashion industry is driven by copying. The big trend setting fashion houses release their collections in London, Paris and New York and the "high street" retailers make affordable copies for you and me. The old saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery is very much the words of the day in fashion and Johanna Blakley argues that if other industries were more like fashion and waived their IP rights, they would find healthier return within their industries (heavily IP protected industries having lower gross profits in America than industries where IP protection is low.) This was an interesting take on an old paradox in IP law, but one thing, which wasn't considered so much here is the creature that is the "brand."
Take that all known and loved iconic Luis Vuitton bag, need I say more? Even if you've never ventured from living in a cave you would know the one I mean. Can this bag be copied by the high street retailers? No, because they've essentially slapped their trademark all over it, any copying here would be trademark infringement as well as potentially passing off. Luis Vuitton is the one, which springs to mind, but there are plenty of other high end fashion houses, which slap their trademark on products, think Chanel, Savatore Ferragamo, Mulberry, there's a big old list! The brand here (protected by trademark) is something, which is used to protect copying in fashion.
I don't believe it stops there. The beauty of fashion and the reason why it doesn't attract IP status as other industries is because it's a utility, it's something we use every day, it is not distinctive enough alone to give rise to exclusive Intellectual Property rights. The creation of a "brand" however is incredibly distinctive and if created well, can create a concept so powerful it can extend endlessly throughout our society. Fashion in the world of the brand is about the concept as much as it is about the clothes.
Take our staple fashion pieces; a pair of jeans, leggings, a t-shirt, a jumper; the choice to buy these wardrobe essentials comes from us buying into an idea as much it does the design of the product. I was considering the growing emergence of the "concept" store such as hollister this morning, where the lighting is dim, the perfume is potent and the music is loud. Why is it like this? Call me "old" but I actually find it quite annoying, I think many others do. I asked my boyfriend, who is a fashion retail guru why Hollister have chosen to do this. He replied that it was an extension of the brand, they want to take their customers away from a shopping mall in Shepherd's Bush and into a Californian surf shack. This image is as much what we "buy" into as it is the actual clothes and let's not forget the seagull placed carefully on every top pocket. Innovation is the "statement" of the fashion world, not the staple, it is the retreat of the fashion forward and although I see this "copying" hierarchy emerge, there is more to the story in that the retailers have created stories in order to claim their stamp on the products, they have created the brand.
The incentive to innovate here I think has something to do with attaching it to a brand's identity, this can be quirky colours; a particular cut of dress; which is released seasons after season in different colours or even a pattern embossed on a button. The realm of the brand is however we like to think of it something which attracts some kind of ownership, which we recognise to give rise to IP rights. This makes me question how IP free fashion actually is and in turn question how much innovation has to do with pure creativity rather than furthering brand identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment